We Still Haven't Played Anyone With Better Recruits Than Us

[iowalaw]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

 

[HerkysDad]

I realize we get to choose who we recruit, but i didn't know we got to do our own Big Ten scheduling. . I believe Michigan and Penn State are happy we don't play them this year as we have owned them for the past several years.

 

[MadDogC]

Personally, i think we can beat anybody. Who should we fear--beyond reasonable respect for a worthy opponent? No one. No one in the B1G east is above us. And the B1G overall seems to be as good as the SEC was once hyped to be--or better.

 

[MepoDawg#]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

I don't think for a minute that 3 of the 4 you mention have much better athletes than Iowa. Of course, OSU does, but the others don't.

 

[Birky]

MAC level recruiting.

 

[TankHawk]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

Why do use "our" when talking about Iowa?

 

[hawkeye1954]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

Trolls gotta troll.

 

[StormHawk42]

 

[IamHawkeye]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

I think you need to read the article about King's recruitment and what his HS coach said.

 

[PHXIowaClub]

The subject of this post is Iowa hasn't beaten anyone with better recruits. If you look at the OP's statistics, his statement is correct. If you look at things objectively, Iowa doesn't have a tough schedule. That being said, Iowa can only play the teams on their B1G schedule. I think everyone can agree the wins against Pitt and Wisconsin are solid wins (not great wins). I think everyone can agree beating Iowa State (especially in Ames) is refreshing. I don't study posters so I don't know if this subject was meant at a dig but if you just strictly look at his statement, it is correct. Iowa misses out on playing 4 of the better teams in the B1G. I think it's unfortunate because I miss the original Big Ten opponents but you still can't take away from going 7-0 against any schedule.....it's tough to do.

 

[Prophethawk]

Why do use "our" when talking about Iowa?

Apparently he is part of the staff, so we can blame all 'our' recruiting on him.

 

[pocha444444]

Well of course recruiting rankings correlate with team success. Everyone knows that, right? Oh wait, forgot I'm on hawkeyereport.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

The subject of this post is Iowa hasn't beaten anyone with better recruits. If you look at the OP's statistics, his statement is correct. If you look at things objectively, Iowa doesn't have a tough schedule. That being said, Iowa can only play the teams on their B1G schedule. I think everyone can agree the wins against Pitt and Wisconsin are solid wins (not great wins). I think everyone can agree beating Iowa State (especially in Ames) is refreshing. I don't study posters so I don't know if this subject was meant at a dig but if you just strictly look at his statement, it is correct. Iowa misses out on playing 4 of the better teams in the B1G. I think it's unfortunate because I miss the original Big Ten opponents but you still can't take away from going 7-0 against any schedule.....it's tough to do.

Okay, so then what conclusion can we extrapolate from this piece of information? Surely, there was a point it....

Is it to say that we're beating the teams we're suppose to beat? Is it to say that we'll probably lose (or building an excuse for a potential loss) to any team with better recruiting than us? Is it just a random fact for our viewing pleasure that is merely a nice coincidence (nice because we're 7-0) and has no actual bearing on the games as they're being played?

While it's factual and all....the real fact is it takes a whole team to make this thing work. I suppose the OP has the other class rankings too and perhaps he can throw something together to show where we stand as a whole from freshman to RS senior compared to the opponents on our entire schedule. That might mean a bit more considering Iowa started 8 sophomores and freshmen combined in their last game and relied heavily on two others to provide us the ability to run the ball.

Here's another random fun fact: Iowa has 2 seniors at Linebacker on their roster....and one of them doesn't start. The rest are freshmen and sophomores.........................

But yeah, the OP's information is accurate. To what end, I guess that's his call.....

 

[cmmnsenscfb]

Why stop there? Post the remaining opponents rankings as well. Just curious.

 

[Birky]

Why stop there? Post the remaining opponents rankings as well. Just curious.

There would be one that makes a great argument against the importance of recruiting rankings...

 

[cmmnsenscfb]

There would be one that makes a great argument against the importance of recruiting rankings...

Which one jirky?

 

[Packer54]

I think the "cupcake schedule" comment is funny. While I realize the schedule from here on out is easier, the comment is made based on where we are today. So, can the OP line up our cupcake schedule against other Big Ten teams SOS to show how ours is so much easier through 7 games than all others? I think our SOS is second or third in the conference if memory serves me correct. Northwestern, who we pounded, is first. Again going by memory because after seeing it once it was enough for me to laugh off anyone's comments about a cupcake schedule. We are who we are.....7-0 and 12th in the country. I know that REALLY bothers some people. Maryland up next!!

 

[Birky]

Which one jirky?

Purdue.

 

[Hawkirish]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

Why aren't 2013, 2014 and 2015 rankings used also? Aren't those kids part of the respective teams? I wonder why?

 

[Boschee06]

Why aren't 2013, 2014 and 2015 rankings used also? Aren't those kids part of the respective teams? I wonder why?

OP didn't include those years because his theory falls apart as Iowa is behind several of those teams for those years. What's interesting is Maryland is above Iowa in recruiting rankings for most of the recent years.

Maybe we should be more concerned about that game...

 

[h-hawk]

2013 53rd
2014 59th
2015 58th

Maybe OP didn't want to rub it in.

 

[jdv77]

This is the ranking for the 2011-15 classes. I wasn't entirely sure why the OP stopped with 2 classes. (I couldn't find rankings for Illinois State).

#30, #43, #53, #59, #58 Iowa

#40, #57, #57, #33, #37 Wisconsin
#42, #65, #47, #75, #45 Illinois
#51, #88, #58, #56, #69 Iowa State
#59, #47, #35, #44, #68 Pitt
#88, #61, #53, #68, #55 Northwestern
#103, #100, #118, #123, #90 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

#43, #35, #33, #53, #54 Maryland
#60, #67, #38, #38, #49 Indiana
#94, #33, #56, #72, #69 Purdue
#52, #73, #61, #52, #52 Minnesota
#15, #25, #17, #32, #31 Nebraska

A couple of comments.
(1) I think that the Rivals formula overstates the difference in classes, and rewards schools for signing large classes. If you were simply to take the star average for each class, the differences in recruiting would appear far more subtle/less measurable.

(2) As an example, if you look at Wisconsin's recruiting from 2011-15, this is the average stars for each player in Wisconsin's class. 2011-3.05, 2012-3.08, 2013-3.00, 2014-2.88, 2015-3.00. The reason why Wisconsin's classes were lower ranked is volume: 2011-20 signees, 2012-12 signees, 2013-17 signees, 2014-25 signees, 2015-20 signees.

(3) In contrast, this is the average stars per Iowa class over the same period: 2011-3.00, 2012-2.96, 2013-2.81, 2014-2.79, 2015-2.71. The size of each class is as follows: 2011-24, 2012-24, 2013-21, 2014-19, 2015-21.

(4) Looking at recruiting rankings does not factor attrition in, either positively or negatively. If anything, Rivals rewards attrition because it rewards larger class sizes.

(5) I don't know how to consider the 2011 class. For many schools, a substantial portion of the 2011 class would have exhausted their eligibility, as they would have played as true freshmen. Including Darian Cooper, Iowa has 9 recruits left from the 2011 class, with 7 starters (Blythe, Canzeri, Fisher, Hillyer, Krieger-Coble, Lomax, Walsh)--I counted Hillyer as a starter because the Iowa 2-deep lists 3 WRs as starters, even though I think most often Iowa does not open with a 3 WR set.

(6) The OP's premise is interesting. I was surprised at how low the rankings were for Wisconsin and Pitt. I think that the truest calculation of recruited talent would be to use the 4.9-6.1 scale that Rivals uses for recruits, and to subtract out attrition to figure out the average ranking of players on each roster. That would take more time and patience than I have.

 

[Titanhawk2]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

2013 Pitt, Illinois and NW were ranked higher
2014 Iowa State, Wisconsin, Pitt and NW
2015 Wisconsin, Illinois, NW

It's team not a class that does it.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

What about teams like Texas who are always top 10 or USC. How about a team like Temple, Toledo, Utah, Boise State, etc.... Recruiting is far from an exact science and there is no way to "prove" anything one way or another

 

[Prophethawk]

We'll go over this again. From the people that started the whole star thing (I and many others have posted articles about it on this site). The stars don't mean anything. It's just an educated guess drawing from very limited info and resources (a camp, a little film, some just by who offered them because they have never actually seen the kid. fact. etc..) put together in an attempt to sell memberships to their respected sites. Nothing more, nothing less. After identifying the top 50-100 athletes, it's a total crapshoot and very regionally biased. This isn't my opinion, this is what the people that started this have said. How can some of you folks incredulity be so strong? According to the 'scouts', the coaches don't even look at stars and they don't talk to coaches about 'stars'. The rating kids get is totally subjective across many services and there is no mechanism to gauge their accuracy. So stating that 'stars' prove something is rather inane. The only thing that was proven here, is how exploitable and stubborn some folks are. I'll let you get back to your delusions now. Have a good day.

 

[Hawkirish]

I'm assuming the OP won't complain if Iowa loses to Maryland, Nebraska and Ohio state if Iowa is lucky enough to make it to the big 10 championship plus whoever the Hawks play in a bowl game since they would all have better recruits.

It's interesting how some "Hawk" fans can't stand the success of this team.

 

[cmmnsenscfb]

I'm assuming the OP won't complain if Iowa loses to Maryland, Nebraska and Ohio state if Iowa is lucky enough to make it to the big 10 championship plus whoever the Hawks play in a bowl game since they would all have better recruits.

It's interesting how some "Hawk" fans can't stand the success of this team.

The difference is definitely the coaching staff. It would be comical to see the rapid decline of hawk football if, after this season, KF walked off the field and gave you myopic hawk fans the bird as he leaves for the NFL.

 

[Recruiting Violation]

I'm assuming the OP won't complain if Iowa loses to Maryland, Nebraska and Ohio state if Iowa is lucky enough to make it to the big 10 championship plus whoever the Hawks play in a bowl game since they would all have better recruits.

It's interesting how some "Hawk" fans can't stand the success of this team.

iowalaw isn't actually an Iowa fan. Obvious troll is obvious. The problem is that people continue to take him/her seriously and debate him/her as if these statements are being made by an actual Iowa fan.

 

[David1979]

I had no idea those schools get better recruits!!! I am totally shocked. Besides OSU, Ferentz has done pretty well against Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State despite the lack of starzzzz.

 

[TankHawk]

I'm assuming the OP won't complain if Iowa loses to Maryland, Nebraska and Ohio state if Iowa is lucky enough to make it to the big 10 championship plus whoever the Hawks play in a bowl game since they would all have better recruits.

It's interesting how some "Hawk" fans can't stand the success of this team.

Of course the OP won't complain if Iowa loses because he/she is not an Iowa fan.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

Nice not having Penn St? I'm sure plenty of Iowa fans love to play PSU they don't deserve to be credited with success of OSU and Michigan schools this year. If you want to talk about schedules right now look at who they played (Indiana missing qb and rb). They have zero excuses to be 6-0. Reality will set in soon for them with their remaining schedule.

 

[StatisticsLie]

The subject of this post is Iowa hasn't beaten anyone with better recruits. If you look at the OP's statistics, his statement is correct. If you look at things objectively, Iowa doesn't have a tough schedule. That being said, Iowa can only play the teams on their B1G schedule. I think everyone can agree the wins against Pitt and Wisconsin are solid wins (not great wins). I think everyone can agree beating Iowa State (especially in Ames) is refreshing. I don't study posters so I don't know if this subject was meant at a dig but if you just strictly look at his statement, it is correct. Iowa misses out on playing 4 of the better teams in the B1G. I think it's unfortunate because I miss the original Big Ten opponents but you still can't take away from going 7-0 against any schedule.....it's tough to do.

He's using poor measurement tools as well as incomplete measurements. Just another instance where people manipulate statistics to promote false information. Draft class rankings that use a class size basis to say who had a better class are flawed in design.

 

[cmmnsenscfb]

Nice not having Penn St? I'm sure plenty of Iowa fans love to play PSU they don't deserve to be credited with success of OSU and Michigan schools this year. If you want to talk about schedules right now look at who they played (Indiana missing qb and rb). They have zero excuses to be 6-0. Reality will set in soon for them with their remaining schedule.

Whereas reality may not set in for you hawk fans until November or possibly December.

 

[cmmnsenscfb]

He's using poor measurement tools as well as incomplete measurements. Just another instance where people manipulate statistics to promote false information. Draft class rankings that use a class size basis to say who had a better class are flawed in design.

Statistics only lie when used against hawks.

 

[TankHawk]

We'll go over this again. From the people that started the whole star thing (I and many others have posted articles about it on this site). The stars don't mean anything. It's just an educated guess drawing from very limited info and resources (a camp, a little film, some just by who offered them because they have never actually seen the kid. fact. etc..) put together in an attempt to sell memberships to their respected sites. Nothing more, nothing less. After identifying the top 50-100 athletes, it's a total crapshoot and very regionally biased. This isn't my opinion, this is what the people that started this have said. How can some of you folks incredulity be so strong? According to the 'scouts', the coaches don't even look at stars and they don't talk to coaches about 'stars'. The rating kids get is totally subjective across many services and there is no mechanism to gauge their accuracy. So stating that 'stars' prove something is rather inane. The only thing that was proven here, is how exploitable and stubborn some folks are. I'll let you get back to your delusions now. Have a good day.

Agree. There is merit to evaluations of the top 300 or so kids thus there is some validity to about the Top 20 or so recruiting rankings since they achieve this by signing a lot of those top 300. After that, there is not a huge difference between say #30 and #60 since it is based on a lot of subjective and regionally biased decisions. Player development and keeping players in the program become much more important at this level. Iowa under KF has normally excelled at player development but has had problems with attrition lately. Hopefully Kirk 3.0 will have less problems with this going forward.

 

[IACub]

I've noticed a lot of threads lately bashing hawk fans who are disappointed in the way recruiting has been going in recent years and claiming that our 7-0 record "proves" that stars don't matter. They also say our record proves that Ferentz is brilliant at player development. The facts do not back this up.

If anything, our 7-0 record proves that stars DO matter (as does having a cupcake schedule). Thus far, all 7 of our wins have come against teams who had worse recruiting classes than ours for guys who are curently juniors and seniors. So perhaps having the best players and best facilities and highest paid coaches are why we've beat everyone we have and we can ditch the whole "shucks, we're just Iowa" excuses? Perhaps we need not be so insecure?

Here are the 2011 class (Canzeri's class) and 2012 class (Beathard's class) rankings:

#30, #43 Iowa
#40, #57 Wisconsin
#42, #65 Illinois
#51, #88 Iowa State
#59, #47 Pitt
#88, #61 Northwestern
#103, #100 North Texas
#130, #130 Illinois State

Moral of the story...it's nice not having Mich, Mich State, Penn State, and OSU on the schedule...and it's even nicer to win the recruiting battles against our peers because stars do matter.

 

[cmmnsenscfb]

Agree. There is merit to evaluations of the top 300 or so kids thus there is some validity to about the Top 20 or so recruiting rankings since they achieve this by signing a lot of those top 300. After that, there is not a huge difference between say #30 and #60 since it is based on a lot of subjective and regionally biased decisions. Player development and keeping players in the program become much more important at this level. Iowa under KF has normally excelled at player development but has had problems with attrition lately. Hopefully Kirk 3.0 will have less problems with this going forward.

The whole process is biased not just 30-60, you used those numbers to fit your biased narrative.

 

[pocha444444]

What about teams like Texas who are always top 10 or USC. How about a team like Temple, Toledo, Utah, Boise State, etc.... Recruiting is far from an exact science and there is no way to "prove" anything one way or another

You're starting to figure it out now. It's not an exact science, it's not perfect. There are flaws and may even be regional biases. But there is a correlation between team rankings and success.

 

[iowalaw]

I'm pretty sure no one on earth has said the rankings system is a "perfect science." Such an ignorant, extremist thing to say. The facts are the facts, though. The teams with higher ranked recruiting classes win more games than the teams with the lower ranked recruiting classes, on average, each and every year. The teams on Iowa's schedule thus far have done very poorly in recruiting, and as a result, they lacked much fire power. None of them had great QBs or RBs, and it showed. As a result, we have not been out classed, athletically, this season, like we were in the bowl game against Tennessee.

Stars do matter, and it's foolish to say otherwise. Similarly, it is foolish to factor in the recruiting class rankings of the freshmen class or even the sophomores, as Iowa and most other teams has two deeps made up primarily of jrs and seniors.

 

[Hawks_Rock_12]

I'm assuming the OP won't complain if Iowa loses to Maryland, Nebraska and Ohio state if Iowa is lucky enough to make it to the big 10 championship plus whoever the Hawks play in a bowl game since they would all have better recruits.

It's interesting how some "Hawk" fans can't stand the success of this team.

Dude you kind of smell like KILROY, I'll be watching you !!!!!