Taking a group of mostly 3 star recruits to two championship games

[General Tso]

is waaaay more impressive than winning a natty with 8+ five star recruits. The talent on the blue bloods is impressive, but I guarantee none of those five star recruits could have lifted up the last two Iowa teams like 22 did. Not a diss on the other Iowa players, just reality.

 

[Moral]

I'll allow this moral victory.

 

[Rose bowl or bust]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

 

[General Tso]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

I'll stand corrected on the average star ranking. I still believe no other wbb player could have taken this group of players to these heights. My point was about the greatness of Clark.

 

[IANit]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

I don't think South Carolina had a player worse than 40th in the country. Most of the team was in the Top 15 from my cursory research.

 

[BirdistheWord]

I don't think South Carolina had a player worse than 40th in the country. Most of the team was in the Top 15 from my cursory research.

This is the bigger point. Iowas on paper talent vs LsU, South Carolina, UConn, etc.

 

[Rose bowl or bust]

I'll stand corrected on the average star ranking. I still believe no other wbb player could have taken this group of players to these heights. My point was about the greatness of Clark.

Your point may have been about Clark’s greatness, but there was zero reason for you to put down the other athletes who worked their asses off to get the Hawkeyes into those championship!

 

[Rose bowl or bust]

This is the bigger point. Iowas on paper talent vs LsU, South Carolina, UConn, etc.

Yeah, the woman’s game is a different animal when it comes to hoarding top talent. We’d all be happy as hell if Fran could fill a roster with a 5* and 7 4* players (all in the top 100) like Lisa had. There are 2 big differences for women though;

1). Those 5* stick around for 4 years. In the men’s game, many of them have moved on after a year or two of college.
2) probably more worrisome, collecting a bunch of 40-99 players won’t hold up against the blue bloods who have stock piled the #1-40 players for their rosters. Iowa has 3 top 100 kids for next year (Heiden @ 40 is the highest)…teams that 3 kids inside the top 40:
UConn
South Carolina
USC
UCLA
Texas (only 2….but have #43 too)
*** Shockingly…LSU’s highest is #97

A special player like CC helped make up a big chunk of that gap, but it just wasn’t enough in the end against the Cocks. Teams like Iowa, Indiana, Louisville can always be competitive, but it’s going to take a special talent to get them over the top until more parity comes along.

 

[longliveCS40]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

Here's the problem with your argument.

South Carolina roster:
Every player=5 star except one that was a 4 star.

It's a literal dream team. Put Caitlin on that team and she has Natties last year and this year at minimum.

 

[Chuck C]

I don't think South Carolina had a player worse than 40th in the country. Most of the team was in the Top 15 from my cursory research.

I think UConn had only 1 player that wasn’t a 5 star, and S. Carolina only had 2. I think every player on S Carolina, including their entire bench had higher ratings than Iowa’s entire team except for CC.

 

[longliveCS40]

South Carolina Roster:
Kamilla Cardosa: 5 star
Bree Hall: 5 star
Ashlyn Watkins: 5 star
Chloe Kitts: 5 star
Te-Hina Paopao: 5 star
Raven Johnson: 5 star
Sania Feagin: 5 star
Milaysia Fulwiley: 5 star
Tessa Johnson: 4 star

 

[Herky T Hawk]

Edinger failing to live up to her ranking really hurts. Could have used a ~40ish ranked upperclassman big today. She’s played like a 3 star player at best so far in her career. Of those 4 star players, on Stuelke and Affolter have actually played like it in this run to end the season.

We know Bluder isn’t the kind of person to Crean players from the roster. But we all also knew that this team was one or two pieces short of a national title winning team. Lauren Betts may have been all we needed today to battle with their size, but we likely needed another guard for depth after Molly went down.

In a few years it will be interesting to see how it goes if she can pull in a couple more 5 star players to go with a bunch of other 4 stars that we already have or are coming. That could give us the depth needed to compete for at least a conference title and final four in a different way than we did this year. Too bad this run didn’t happen 10 years ago as her age, turns 63 in 9 days, is going to start being used against her in recruiting in the near future.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Here's the problem with your argument.

South Carolina roster:
Every player=5 star except one that was a 4 star.

It's a literal dream team. Put Caitlin on that team and she has Natties last year and this year at minimum.

The real question is what woman ever would have taken this team to two championships.
That is not a slight to the team. Women’s hoops have a concentration of talent on a few teams that is not seen anywhere else. And. The difference in talent 1-100 in girls hs recruits is far far greater than men’s.

 

[Libertylover]

I think UConn had only 1 player that wasn’t a 5 star, and S. Carolina only had 2. I think every player on S Carolina, including their entire bench had higher ratings than Iowa’s entire team except for CC.

Thought an announcer said SC has 10 AA’s on the team??

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Women's basketball is still pretty top heavy, but it's so much better than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Lots of teams have star players today and lots more stars are coming. It's progress.

But to the OP's point, I don't think any other single woman could have taken this team to two Natty title games.

 

[not_mantiteo]

I think UConn had only 1 player that wasn’t a 5 star, and S. Carolina only had 2. I think every player on S Carolina, including their entire bench had higher ratings than Iowa’s entire team except for CC.

For what it's worth, that one UConn player who wasn't a 5 star was Nika Muhl who is European and under-scouted/recruited due to that. Everyone else was a former McDonald's AA, top 40 type of recruit.

I will say there is a massive gap between top 20 players and the 50-100 rated recruits. Having multiple top 10 players is basically a cheat code.

 

[BirdistheWord]

The fact that someone hasn’t done a story on this is amazing. It takes some investigation and research as well as understanding nuances of the women’s game. But it really elevates what CC has done even more.

“Clark/Iowa overcomes significant talent gap to elevate Iowa to back to back title games against blue blood programs stacked with elite 5 star talent.”

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

Your point may have been about Clark’s greatness, but there was zero reason for you to put down the other athletes who worked their asses off to get the Hawkeyes into those championship!

No one is putting down anyone on the team, you squid. There’s obviously a pretty wise gal in talent, that’s what was being pointed out.

 

[General Tso]

Your point may have been about Clark’s greatness, but there was zero reason for you to put down the other athletes who worked their asses off to get the Hawkeyes into those championship!

If that's how you want to interpret it, be my guest. Seems plenty of folks got the point.

 

[bdcolt45er]

Women's basketball is still pretty top heavy, but it's so much better than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Lots of teams have star players today and lots more stars are coming. It's progress.

But to the OP's point, I don't think any other single woman could have taken this team to two Natty title games.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think there is significant risk for women's basketball to go back to their top heavy status. Personally I believe this would be a blow to its popularity.

There are 2 factors that I think could change this. One the transfer portal. You could see some of these talented players look at their situation and just want more playing time. I also think Clark demonstrating that if you elite you don't have to go to UCONN or South Carolina. In fact going away from those programs may allow you to demonstrate your talent more and to be a bigger star. I really think if Clark had gone to UCONN she would have been successful but not nearly as big. She would've had to defer to her teammates more. She wouldn't have put up the insane numbers she has.

At the moment though the top teams are still stock piling talent.

 

[abby97]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

Stop, a 4 star in women's basketball is not even close to a 4 star in football. In women's basketball if you aren't rated in the top 30-50 players in the country, you likely aren't making a difference to a college program. As a matter of fact, to do that, you need to be a top 10-15 rated player. Just look at UConn, S. Carolina, etc. who are the difference makers? (they aren't the 92nd rated 4*) In women's hoops, the distance between a top 5 player and a top 20 player is humongous, that is usually not the case in mens.

 

[Bank of Hawk]

I'll allow this moral victory.

The finest of @Moral victories, if I may allow such a statement.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

Here's the problem with your argument.

South Carolina roster:
Every player=5 star except one that was a 4 star.

It's a literal dream team. Put Caitlin on that team and she has Natties last year and this year at minimum.

You are correct, and then Caitlin could be considered great. She was so close to greatness.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think there is significant risk for women's basketball to go back to their top heavy status. Personally I believe this would be a blow to its popularity.

There are 2 factors that I think could change this. One the transfer portal. You could see some of these talented players look at their situation and just want more playing time. I also think Clark demonstrating that if you elite you don't have to go to UCONN or South Carolina. In fact going away from those programs may allow you to demonstrate your talent more and to be a bigger star. I really think if Clark had gone to UCONN she would have been successful but not nearly as big. She would've had to defer to her teammates more. She wouldn't have put up the insane numbers she has.

At the moment though the top teams are still stock piling talent.

Agreed. But there is a LOT more talent now. UConn and USC might still win it all for a few years, but the competition from everyone else will be pretty fierce.

 

[EagleHawk]

Next year UConn will have the #1 player from the class of 2020 (Bueckers), 2021 (Fudd) and 2024 (Strong) on their roster, along with 5 other girls ranked in the top 6 of their respective class. Go drop some money on UConn/South Carolina in the title game next year and thank me later.

 

[Herky T Hawk]

Stop, a 4 star in women's basketball is not even close to a 4 star in football. In women's basketball if you aren't rated in the top 30-50 players in the country, you likely aren't making a difference to a college program. As a matter of fact, to do that, you need to be a top 10-15 rated player. Just look at UConn, S. Carolina, etc. who are the difference makers? (they aren't the 92nd rated 4*) In women's hoops, the distance between a top 5 player and a top 20 player is humongous, that is usually not the case in mens.

"In women's basketball if you aren't rated in the top 30-50 players in the country, you likely aren't making a difference to a college program."

This isn't fully true. In some cases it just means it may take a few years for you to make a difference. Gustafson was ranked around 80 and became NPOY. Kate Martin and Gabbie Marshall were both 3 star recruits who at least looked like they belonged on Final Four teams as super seniors, although not starters for any of the blue bloods.

However in other cases, it means that there's a higher likelihood that you don't turn into a big performer in college. Hannah Stewart was ranked two spots behind Megan and was a career 7ppg contributor and didn't average more than 10 min/game until her junior year.

 

[IAChief32]

I don't think South Carolina had a player worse than 40th in the country. Most of the team was in the Top 15 from my cursory research.

They had 8 McD AAs. The other ones were the top JUCO transfer and a top 50.

 

[TampaHawkfan]

The last few Iowa teams makes me think of the men's Syracuse basketball program. Typically very good teams, but when they got Carmelo, he was able to carry them to another level. I know he DID get the natty there, but CC and company came darn close. Having that superstar player that can carry you is huge.

Where from here? It would be foolhardy IMO not to expect a step back without CC, but no reason to think this won't still be a good program.. But I hope to see good recruiting momentum after this recent success. Addison Deal is a nice start.

 

[onionman1]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

Pretty good rankings for Iowa's players! Now, go look at SC's rankings for their players.

 

[MVPFAN]

Getting athletic bigs and also guards and especially forwards at 6 feet or taller are going to be a big factor. The blue blood programs have high end bigs with above average athletic ability, not slow space occupiers.

 

[Herky T Hawk]

The roster is not a bunch of three stars. 16 people liked this? C'mon people.

40% of our starting lineup was 3 star super seniors
20% of our starting lineup (pre-injury) was a transfer from Central Michigan, who I can't find a recruiting ranking for but was probably a 2 star super senior
20% of our starting lineup was a solid 4 star sophomore, playing out of position as an undersized center
20% of our lineup was a true 5 star

Bluder hasn't been able to recruit many 4 stars until the past few years. Leading to those players being younger and not ready for big minutes.
Our top four substitutes are all four star players in Affolter, McCabe, O'Grady, and Feuerbach(transfer)
Then there's Edinger and the freshman/sophomore four stars who weren't ready for prime time this season.

 

[HemiHawk]

The last few Iowa teams makes me think of the men's Syracuse basketball program. Typically very good teams, but when they got Carmelo, he was able to carry them to another level. I know he DID get the natty there, but CC and company came darn close. Having that superstar player that can carry you is huge.

Where from here? It would be foolhardy IMO not to expect a step back without CC, but no reason to think this won't still be a good program.. But I hope to see good recruiting momentum after this recent success. Addison Deal is a nice start.

Here are Bluder's next six recruits. One five star and five four stars. (The usual schools are loading up on 5 stars).

Ava Heiden 6'-4" **** #40 Top 100 HoopGulrz
Alliyah Guyton 5'-8" **** #58 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Teagan Mallegni 6'-0" **** #64 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Taylor Stremlow 5'-8" **** #91 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Addison Deal 6'0" ***** #12 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Journey Houston 5'-11" **** #36 Top 100 HoopGurlz

 

[HemiHawk]

40% of our starting lineup was 3 star super seniors
20% of our starting lineup (pre-injury) was a transfer from Central Michigan, who I can't find a recruiting ranking for but was probably a 2 star super senior
20% of our starting lineup was a solid 4 star sophomore, playing out of position as an undersized center
20% of our lineup was a true 5 star

Bluder hasn't been able to recruit many 4 stars until the past few years. Leading to those players being younger and not ready for big minutes.
Our top four substitutes are all four star players in Affolter, McCabe, O'Grady, and Feuerbach(transfer)
Then there's Edinger and the freshman/sophomore four stars who weren't ready for prime time this season.

Here are Bluder's next six recruits. One five star and five four stars. (The usual schools are loading up on 5 stars).

Ava Heiden 6'-4" **** #40 Top 100 HoopGulrz
Alliyah Guyton 5'-8" **** #58 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Teagan Mallegni 6'-0" **** #64 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Taylor Stremlow 5'-8" **** #91 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Addison Deal 6'0" ***** #12 Top 100 HoopGurlz
Journey Houston 5'-11" **** #36 Top 100 HoopGurlz

 

[DewHawk]

From ESPN rankings:
Feuerbach 4* #71 in country
Marshall 3*
Affolter 4* (prospectnation.com)
Martin 3*
Stuelke 4* #45 in country
O’Grady 4* #92 in country
Edinger 4* #39 in country
McCabe 4* #89 in country

Including these two since you included last years team:
Warnock 4* #84 in the country
Czinano 3*

I’d say your premise of “poor old Iowa only had one good player” is pure BS. Yes, CC22 elevated this group to another level, but she wasn’t out there playing with a bunch of scrubs from an intramural team from Burge Hall.

We weren’t as deep or as tall as the Cocks, but that will always be an issue at Iowa. We can’t afford for a player like Ediger (ranked in the top 40 of her class) to be averaging 1.8 points as a junior. UConn and SC can have that, as they’ll just bring in a couple more top 40 posts.

You have to reevaluate recruiting with the 4-star big misses on the bench IMO. Yes, I know it is not easy, but slow, small for the position (4/5), mobility, etc. are pretty obvious when watching players.

 

[littlez]

You have to reevaluate recruiting with the 4-star big misses on the bench IMO. Yes, I know it is not easy, but slow, small for the position (4/5), mobility, etc. are pretty obvious when watching players.

Getting no points from our bench yesterday was certainly a contributing factor in the loss. No rest for the weary while they were bringing in 5 star after 5 star which turned the game around. We have a lot of misses on our bench right now, especially bigs. We really need McCabe and Feuerbach to develop into players next year. Both could be nice players but they also need to grow their games to not just be shooters and get way more physical. If not the Freshman are going to have to play immediately.

 

[hawkguy77]

Hannah and Syd provide a good base to build from. If Heiden is ready to play, Hannah can move to her natural 4 position. Some combination of McCabe, Feurbach, Guyton and the returning freshman and sophomores should make a competitive team next year. If Deal is the real deal, in 2025-2026 the team could be great.

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

South Carolina Roster:
Kamilla Cardosa: 5 star
Bree Hall: 5 star
Ashlyn Watkins: 5 star
Chloe Kitts: 5 star
Te-Hina Paopao: 5 star
Raven Johnson: 5 star
Sania Feagin: 5 star
Milaysia Fulwiley: 5 star
Tessa Johnson: 4 star

And their coach had to make the comment after the game "no one thought we could do this". One of the talking heads said "yea, they lost all their starters from last year". LOL.

Great team. Glad the Hawks played a damn good game. Always easier to stomach a loss, if you did your best, but we're just outmatched by a better team. ZERO shame in that loss.

But give me a break with the "no one believed in us" garbage comment. Unless you are saying that no one thought you could go undefeated, but I think many believed that too

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

Hannah and Syd provide a good base to build from. If Heiden is ready to play, Hannah can move to her natural 4 position. Some combination of McCabe, Feurbach, Guyton and the returning freshman and sophomores should make a competitive team next year. If Deal is the real deal, in 2025-2026 the team could be great.

I absolutely believe that Lisa has some great momentum going with this Hawkeye locomotive. Were about to really pick up steam!

 

[Rifler]

Depends on how she's able to rebuild,.. An Iowa rebuild won't resemble a South Carolina or LSU rebuild.

 

[abby97]

"In women's basketball if you aren't rated in the top 30-50 players in the country, you likely aren't making a difference to a college program."

This isn't fully true. In some cases it just means it may take a few years for you to make a difference. Gustafson was ranked around 80 and became NPOY. Kate Martin and Gabbie Marshall were both 3 star recruits who at least looked like they belonged on Final Four teams as super seniors, although not starters for any of the blue bloods.

However in other cases, it means that there's a higher likelihood that you don't turn into a big performer in college. Hannah Stewart was ranked two spots behind Megan and was a career 7ppg contributor and didn't average more than 10 min/game until her junior year.

Hence the word "likely"