What the heck is Wisconsins secret
- Thread starter Kurt Warner
- Start date
What's the title of the book and where did you coach?
Last edited:
You guys have great points, and it seems like a lot of ordinary Joes like us get it.
Iowa has all the pieces of the puzzle to provide for a consistent top-10 team every year, if we had a coach with ambition and the right attitude, instead of the same old crap and apathy. Great facilities, brand name, and perfectly situated between several big cities to recruit from, a loyal fanbase that generates elite revenue, tradition, I could go on and on.
So you guys mentioned it, a great organization. Great organizations install a culture of integrity, ambition (with championships as the goal), and commitment. Now how can the organization at the UI be so much lower in standards than an organization like Wisconsin? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. As far as standards, I'm talking about holding oneself accountable and making high quality decisions affecting those you manage. Is it just different priorities as far as business goes, or bad hires in the administration, or true apathy and if it's apathy, then why were they selected in the first place?
Well, except most of the posts were pointed at Alverez (i.e. Barta), rather than at KF. Wisky has had different coaches in FB and BB, and two of their former FB coaches (Bielema and Anderson) haven't done much since. The constant at Wisky has been Alverez.
If he told you that, he would essentially be telling you his name which is a bad idea on a board like this one.
C'mon now they did not win the Joe Moore trophy.
No, Alvarez didn't want to spend on assistant coaches 'cause Barry knows best.
If High quality QB's not interested in Wisconsin, then explain Tolzein and the other Wisconsin QB Brook Bolinger that have been in NFL? Pro stye and A good running game is very attractive feature to recruit a pro style QB.
KF ought to copy Wisconsin offense, MSU defense.
I believe its coaching,strength and conditioning coaches.Other than that I dont believe there is anything different between Iowa& Wisconsin.
I coached at two different Iowa high schools for 35 years, the last 28 at a 3A school. I coached almost every position over the years, but mostly offensive line and defensive backs. I saw a lot of changes over the years and like zone blocking they all happened for a reason. Football evolves on both sides of the ball in response to what the other side of the ball is doing. Anybody, including TV analysts, who say that Iowa is only a zone block team is flat out wrong, although it is fair to say that zone is what Iowa emphasizes and power is what Wisconsin emphasizes. My book was published by Coaches Choice and is available on Amazon, but that is as far as I will go.
1. In state recruiting (Both Iowa and Wisconsin get their pick in state, but Wisconsin has double the choice options):
- 3.13 mm vs. 5.78 mm in state population
- Milwaukee 1.5 mm & Madison 651 k vs. Des Moines 645 k and Quad City 383 k
3. Mostly due to instate recruiting of OL and Defensive speed, they have year-in-year out, the skill needed to run different/superior defensive schemes.
4. Wining tradition. It may take a retired Bary, a raid on Wisky coaches by other schools and a bad coaching hire or two before that changes.
Bottom line, if you can't recruit enough in state talent to compete, you have to get the best 2 and 3 star kids you can, and develop them. Some coaches have the patience, staff and skill to develop kids, some don't. Michigan, OSU and PSU will always have superior recruiting. In the West, its been Wisky and Debby and most years MSU. Teams like Iowa, NU, Minnesota can break trough to 4th or 5th recruiting rank occasionally or at least better then Purdue, Ill and Indiana. Most years, Iowa has the right mix of youth and experience AND can coach them up enough to compete or surprise almost anybody.
Last edited:
It is definitely not the money. Wisconsin fb coaches about the lowest paid in the conference.
Alvarez set the foundation and there is no in-state competition for anything in Wisconsin which also has twice the population.
The number one thing is Wisconsin puts out a huge monsterous OL and with that reputation it's easy to recruit quality RBs. Then you only need to grab a game manager QB and a TE and 1 ok WR and that's ball game year after year. They don't put any chumps out on the OL either... all monsters who can not only hold the point of attack but get a push. They are the model for OL play not us. It's the old Nebraska.
What's most interesting to me is their switch on defense to the 3-4 starting with Dave Aranda brought in by Gary Anderson. Their D was always solid but since that switch they have taken it up a notch. It's essentially a 5-2 as you put out 4 LBs instead of 3 which allows for one additional athlete and 1 less inside plodder. The outside LBs are hybrrid DEs. You can do a lot more out of it and it's much more versatile. The key is getting a huge nose tackle to plug the middle. The 4-3 had a long run of success but I think the 3-4 is the best defense for next 'x' years until teams adjust to it. Our zone scheme really has issues with the 3-4.
The number one thing is Wisconsin puts out a huge monsterous OL and with that reputation it's easy to recruit quality RBs. Then you only need to grab a game manager QB and a TE and 1 ok WR and that's ball game year after year. They don't put any chumps out on the OL either... all monsters who can not only hold the point of attack but get a push. They are the model for OL play not us. It's the old Nebraska.
What's most interesting to me is their switch on defense to the 3-4 starting with Dave Aranda brought in by Gary Anderson. Their D was always solid but since that switch they have taken it up a notch. It's essentially a 5-2 as you put out 4 LBs instead of 3 which allows for one additional athlete and 1 less inside plodder. The outside LBs are hybrrid DEs. You can do a lot more out of it and it's much more versatile. The key is getting a huge nose tackle to plug the middle. The 4-3 had a long run of success but I think the 3-4 is the best defense for next 'x' years until teams adjust to it. Our zone scheme really has issues with the 3-4.
Most of Wisconsin's PWOs are guys with FCS or D2 offers. D3 has little bearing on Wisconsin.
Under Chryst QB and WR recruiting haven't been much different from the other positions ranking-wise
Wisconsin very rarely dips into the Milwaukee school system for recruits. Basketball is much bigger than football there and many cannot get into the university since the system is so poor. That essentially cuts that Milwaukee population in half. The Green Bay area has been more fertile over the last few years. No "Wisconsin State" is bigger than having a larger population pool IMO. I'm sure ISU costs Iowa a scholarship player or two, plus a handful of potential walk-ons, every year
Iowa spends more than Wisconsin on recruiting http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i...ach_big_ten_football_team_spends_on_recr.html
You are wrong when you state, “D3 has little bearing on Wisconsin”. When your state schools are all D3 schools which don’t offer athletic scholarships, and as the original poster stated that some of these schools are almost the size of some D1 programs, this is a HUGE advantage for the Wisconsin walk-on program.
A good athlete with possible D1 potential doesn’t need to decide between accepting a scholarship offer from Wisconsin-Whitewater and walking on at Wisconsin-Madison. This is a HUGE advantage that Barry Alvarez has capitalized on.
Their olinemen play better in college...ours make pro teams? There is never a shortage of great running backs in Madison it seems.
I think their OC trumps any of ours since KF took over as coach
Iowa has had a lot of RB's leave..BW,Coker,Garman...not sure if Wisconsin has had an issue with that
I think their OC trumps any of ours since KF took over as coach
Iowa has had a lot of RB's leave..BW,Coker,Garman...not sure if Wisconsin has had an issue with that
Last edited:
Most of Wisconsin’s PWOs have scholarship offers at the FCS and D2 levels. Both 2018 PWOs so far turned down offers from North Dakota, not something like roster spots at UW-Platteville. Last year there was multiple with Western Illinois offers. One even had a Northern Illinois offer. They flipped an NDSU commit the year before. They are recruiting much more against Winona St and SDSU than they are with UW-Stevens Point and Eau Claire
Wisconsin and Iowa are pretty even with the OL talent they put into the league. Wisconsin has had a little better skill talent overall, but not by much. The difference has 100% been the OC. Frankly I’m not sure where Wisconsin would be without Paul Chryst. His offenses carried Bielema’s best teams. He left enough talent for Anderson to survive, and has fielded a mostly competent offense despite Anderson’s poor recruiting there
I should have guessed that about Milwaukee, a lot like the Chicago public school district (a crying shame that those young men and women are denied a basic education in HS, opportunities for higher education let alone left out of all the scholarships their athletic ability most certainly warrant) but I was thinking the suburbs around Milwaukee proper might be significantly richer (again no supporting facts) compared to what Des Moines has to offer and Quad cities have to offer and even adding Sioux City in total. Especially when you add in Madison, Green Bay and Kenosha. It doesn't surprise me that the Hawks spend more on recruiting PA, FL, TX, MS against all the natural competition there.
Slugging it out fro local talent with close by Debby, Fleck and ISU (should Matt Campbell stick around) along with he rest of the Big Ten West and MSU, and Michigan, the sledding will only get tougher.
When you look at it, making sure the kids you bring in mesh with the staff and your culture, share a common work ethic, a common value system and are committed to getting better, all have to be the corner stone and pillars of any successful recruiting program. If it were easy, anyone could do it.
Last edited:
