That's quite a leap in .......illogic. That has NOTHING to do with this conversation.
Recruiting Gains Over the Last 3 classes
- Thread starter HoustonHawkeye
- Start date
Not over simplification at all. It's 20 years of watching Kirk. But, hey, if you are happy with his recruiting fine. I am not.
Buddy you wound't know a good or bad recruit if it smacked you in the face. Iowa has put somewhere in the neighborhood of the 15 or so most kids in the NFL in KF's time, so clearly you've been excited, right?!?!
Do you want me to go a head and respond to your rebuttal now or wait until you actually say it?!...
I'm going to make this its own thread but I'll start with you first. Tell me the difference between these 5 classes and where they rank.....
Total 5* 4* 3*
20 0 4 16 3.2
20 0 4 16 3.2
21 0 3 16 2.86
21 0 3 16 2.86
21 0 2 16 2.95
17 0 3 13 3.12
Now as you can see above, these classes are remarkably close. Where do they fall in the rankings and what differs about them really?!
An
And I think people on here gone through this every year, and I'm pretty sure it's not 'dominated' by them. The highest percentage of recruits are 3 star. But what you guys just can't seem to grasp is that the same kids will make it to the NFL whether there is any recruit rating 'star' system or not. They are irrelevant. Enjoy them. They are for entertainment value only. The guy who started the whole thing will tell you this.
And those 'blue blood' programs are going to get those same kids regardless if someone gave them a 'star' rating. They always have....long before rating services. It's irrelevant.
And I think people on here gone through this every year, and I'm pretty sure it's not 'dominated' by them. The highest percentage of recruits are 3 star. But what you guys just can't seem to grasp is that the same kids will make it to the NFL whether there is any recruit rating 'star' system or not. They are irrelevant. Enjoy them. They are for entertainment value only. The guy who started the whole thing will tell you this.
You have a loser mentality.Buddy you wound't know a good or bad recruit if it smacked you in the face. Iowa has put somewhere in the neighborhood of the 15 or so most kids in the NFL in KF's time, so clearly you've been excited, right?!?!
Do you want me to go a head and respond to your rebuttal now or wait until you actually say it?!...
If you only knew how stupid your assessment is, you'd be embarrassed. But to do that you'd have to know anything about me.
I mean honestly KC I've known you now for 10+ years posting on these boards. You're on a message board constantly bitching about your head football coach and that is a "winners mentality".... don't bother saying anything there's nothing you can say to rebut that.
Carry on "winner"....
I believe it is the '05 class where KF was riding the success of 02-04 and landed a bunch of highly rated guys. The following didn't pan out or finish their days at Iowa.
Kalvin Bailey 4*
Ryan Bain 4*
Jake Christensen 4*
Dan Doering 5*
In fairness, Dace Richardson, Moeaki and Raphael Eubanks were 4* guys that eventually did earn a starting spot. But wanna see some 3* guys that had a bigger impact than any of the 4* or 5* guys?
Shonn Greene
Pat Angerer
Marshall Yanda
I'll side with Muskie on this. I'll trust our coaching staff's evaluation over any recruiting service.
I also agree with the other poster who made the comment about being high quality people. Just because they are a 4* or 5* on paper doesn't mean they'll be good teammates, stay out of trouble, or get it done in the classroom.
Kirk and company have been at it long enough that they know what they are looking for in a recruit. You want some sizzle, go buy a Nebraska jersey. We've heard all about their recruiting prowess and we proceeded to boat race them by a combined 96-24 the last 2 years with our lowly recruits.
Kalvin Bailey 4*
Ryan Bain 4*
Jake Christensen 4*
Dan Doering 5*
In fairness, Dace Richardson, Moeaki and Raphael Eubanks were 4* guys that eventually did earn a starting spot. But wanna see some 3* guys that had a bigger impact than any of the 4* or 5* guys?
Shonn Greene
Pat Angerer
Marshall Yanda
I'll side with Muskie on this. I'll trust our coaching staff's evaluation over any recruiting service.
I also agree with the other poster who made the comment about being high quality people. Just because they are a 4* or 5* on paper doesn't mean they'll be good teammates, stay out of trouble, or get it done in the classroom.
Kirk and company have been at it long enough that they know what they are looking for in a recruit. You want some sizzle, go buy a Nebraska jersey. We've heard all about their recruiting prowess and we proceeded to boat race them by a combined 96-24 the last 2 years with our lowly recruits.
I don't think I've ever heard a fan of the University of Iowa Hawkeyes call this school Iowa University. I don't recall ever hearing anyone call it that...ever.
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
This has been a topic over the years. If I had to guess though, our average class rankings are even lower than people realize. We have lots of classes in the 40's and 50's and ONLY ONE in the Top 25 under KF. While we have proven that there are diamonds in the rough, you also have to admit that positions like WR have not panned out quite as well for us (not terrible of course). I would also argue that many times with our recruits, it can take a little longer for the player to develop, which has impacted our depth and has fueled our occasional great years.
So in my view, getting a few more 4 Stars EACH YEAR, especially at the skill positions, could make a meaningful difference. Moving from averaging in the mid 40's to mid 30's (for example) could make a difference for a program like ours.
Allowing the program to be a little sexy would go a long way.
Cheers,
So in my view, getting a few more 4 Stars EACH YEAR, especially at the skill positions, could make a meaningful difference. Moving from averaging in the mid 40's to mid 30's (for example) could make a difference for a program like ours.
Allowing the program to be a little sexy would go a long way.
Cheers,
Greene was actually a 2-star coming out of high school. He was a 3 the 2nd time out of Prep...adding even more obscurity to the ranking process.
Wouldn't everyone like to get a couple more 4 star recruits. Which rating service are we using, because who is a 4 star varies by service?
There are only in the neighborhood of 300 4 star recruits in any given year. The top ten blue bloods take about half of them leaving around 150 for the rest of the 120 teams vying for them. If we get 2 or 3 of them per year, we are doing really well and above avg. in my opinion.
I've always considered there to be about 15 or so, what I consider blue blood programs. Those who consistently prove they can recruit nationally like Notre Dame and Michigan. Or those who are in prime recruiting territory like Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Texas, A&M, USC, UCLA & The Ohio St.
Clemson has never been a constant recruiting power but they are of late and they are in prime recruiting territory and Penn State also is in prime recruiting territory and have been solid but not to the level of these others.
On the other end of that UCLA and Texas A&M have also been solid but not always elite.
And of course I have forgotten Oklahoma who always recruits at a very high-level. The most interesting thing about those aforementioned 18 or so programs being...they have been wildly up and down over the last 40 years showing of course that it takes a hell of a lot more than recruiting.
USC Texas, LSU, possibly Alabama possibly Oklahoma, UCLA Auburn etc. etc. etc. have all had more sub 500 seasons or at least similar to Iowa over the last 40 years.
This all comes back to that perspective thing I talk about all the time. Some of us have it most of you don't. I guarantee this information is a surprise to most of you, you just assume these teams are always great but in reality. Half of them are up at the same time half of them are down.
Here's something else that occurred to me while I was scratching my head trying to figure out why everyone thought Michigan was so awesome. They have won one national championship in the last 60 years Hell Iowa has won, one in that same timeframe.
Tennessee one in the last 50 years, Texas one or two, UCLA none, Auburn one and so on and so on, Georgia one in the early 80s Ohio State two.
People don't get it and because they don't get it they're always going to be dissatisfied. End of story!!
Last edited:
There are a lot of reasons why “blue bloods” tend to be up and down. A lot of it has to do with stability. If a coach goes a couple seasons only winning 6-8 games at, say, Texas, he gets fired. Even if the reason for that lack of success is something beyond his control (like injuries). Then the next coach comes in and has to win in the first three years with another coach’s recruits, that may not fit his system, or he gets fired too.
Some of it has to do with the fact that sometimes these schools just hire bad coaches. They might be able to recruit elite talent to the school, but aren’t any good at coaching or developing them.
Some of it has to do with the team getting hit with sanctions (USC, PSU, now Ole Miss).
And of course some of it has to do with the reality that if there are 15 blue bloods, they can’t all be competing for national championships at the same time.
So of course recruiting doesn’t mean everything. No one that has any brains thinks that it does. But programs like Iowa are the exception, not the rule. You (and guys like Muskie) think the takeaway from Iowa’s success is that recruiting rankings don’t matter. I don’t think that’s the appropriate takeaway. To me the takeaway is that Iowa’s coaching staff and program is very unique and incredibly good at certain aspects of the job. The stability, ability to develop kids, ability to spot under-ranked and under-recruited kids that fit your system, are unique to Iowa. If they could combine that with recruiting more “highly ranked” kids at certain positions (like WR), Iowa would be a consistent Top 25 program.
Again with the holy oversimplification Batman. I won't speak for muskie but never have you heard me say recruiting doesn't matter. What I've said is our recruiting especially over the last several years is better than it has been ranked, therefore the rankings are inaccurate.
In fact I have said at least 200 times on this very board. I think it is unfair to the kids to call Iowa a "developmental" program, when in reality what they're really good at is finding kids that were overlooked and poorly evaluated by the "services"
Something else you said tucked away at top that I'm sure you considered somewhat meaningless to our discussion. Yes of coarse these programs struggle because they are firing these coaches way too fast...thankfully our fans haven't been in charge of making those decisions for us.
And yes of course not everyone can win the national championship. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with these teams that are going sub 500...But regardless that's the point, try to understand the totality of the landscape & how hard it is.
Finally I think pretty much every defender of the Truth on this board, those like me who just want things looked at with reasonable perspective. Have all readily agreed we have failed miserably at wide receiver. But once again, that just shows of all the positions we excel at, wide receiver has been one that we don't apparently identify talent well. A ranking service won't change that, plenty of two and three star stud wide receivers in the NFL, they just aren't coming from Iowa.
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
Yes, absolutely. There are a finite number of 4 and 5 star players, across any of the recruiting services. Actually, we already get about two per year on average. I believe we need to expect more. So, yes if we could get to 3-4, but especially skill guys. So with 300, securing over 1% does not seem impossible. I continue to be a proponent of offering more WR scholarships (we did it once under GD and did not work out but still believe we would benefit over time). I believe running a true Pro system with former NFL coaches like KF, BF and KOK will continue to offer us a point of difference, albeit a small one.
Maybe that is a reflection of my age, but it is highly likely I was a Hawkeye fan before you were ever born. My fandom started in 1956 (age 8) listening to JZ on WHO, reading about games in the Big Peach, season tickets for over 30 years, etc.
So, please excuse me if I do not meet your standards of being a fan. Obviously I am a very, very loyal fan of the Hawkeyes for over 60 years.
Man, you were making so much sense until you had to bring up recruiting rankings again. If the coaches don't look at anyone's ranking, then how do they know they got a kid that was higher rated by one of many recruiting fan sites? Which one should the believe? ESPN? Rivals? etc... Of course the better athletes they get to develop increases their upside, but what they are rated by some fan sites has no bearing in whether Iowa recruits them or not, they don't follow them. The ranking is meaningless. They are trying to get the best athletes to sign based on THEIR OWN evaluation and who is actually interested in them. Doesn't matter what the hell any of these stupid sites rate a kid if he has absolutely no interest in Iowa, so once again, these rankings are worthless.
Should they be recruiting a kid from Alabama because he has 'stars' when the kid has never responded to a mailing, and email, a phone call, nothing.....?
