Iowa's Only 2011 QB Recruit Talking to the 'Canes

So much for early commits.

over 1 year ago PCarroll_u_sm(j)irk 30 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Also,

Link

Hey Dolph, you look like I need a beer.

by Give Eddie a Beer on Jan 24, 2011 2:07 PM CST reply actions

It also seems that Miami is desperate to land a QB, ANY QB right now from the Miami area, they are going after a bunch of kids already committed elsewhere, both pocket-QBs and dual-threat QBs. Seems like Golden is convinced Jacory Harris isn’t the answer (he isn’t) and that the freshman who played this season might not be all that either.

I can see why Rudock would be interested in Miami, but you would think the way Miami is going about it would be something of a turn-off.

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Jan 24, 2011 2:22 PM CST reply actions

I agree

It seems shady (and I know it happens all the time) but when somebody is already verballed to a school, it just seems like bad business to go and try to pry them away from another school. I’m sure everybody does it, but it still gets my blood boiling a little bit.

Anyway, rant aside, I can’t see him going there, the situation does not seem stable to me, however, I’ve been proven wrong before, so what the hell do I know.

You may call me Don Diddles.

by ninerhawk on Jan 24, 2011 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

Everyone does it, even Iowa.

Albert Young was a significant decommit (from Wisco), as was (hopefully) The Polish Hat (from Illinois).

My understanding is that Iowa goes about it a little more above-board than other schools — i.e., they only continue to pursue guys who indicate that they’re interested in still hearing from Iowa — but that’s really a very slippery slope. Recruiting in general is sticky business (to put it mildly) and until the NCAA installs an earlier signing period, we’re going to see lots of decommits and schools continuing to recruit “committed” guys.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 24, 2011 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

I am not in favor of any system

that locks kids in any sooner than possible. Picking the right college is a tough decision for your average Joe student. Weighing the variables of school reputation, campus, financial aid (need and merit), distance from home, AP courses accepted and hot looking guys was an ongoing process for my daughter and the leaders seemed to change weekly as the top schools came back with offers. It has to be even more convoluted for student athletes. This is a business for Universities and their athletic programs and they know the tricks and moves by heart while for most students this is their one and only time in the process. There is no need to stack the deck even more against the students. Personally, I think the students should be allowed to change their minds up until they accept the first scholarship/R&B payment from the school.

"You’re talking about things that are real. That’s real. In those other dual meets, it wasn’t real, but now it’s real." ~ Tom Brands regarding the Iowa State dual.

by Kluginator on Jan 24, 2011 4:20 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed, especially with the farce that is the FBS coaching carousel.

That could make early decisions even more tragic for certain recruits.

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Jan 24, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions

Um.

Personally, I think the students should be allowed to change their minds up until they accept the first scholarship/R&B payment from the school.

So until September? That’s a bit excessive and could be logistical nightmare. I’m sympathetic to kids, but at some point you just have to make a decision.

And maybe I wasn’t clear, but the earlier signing period I referenced would be IN ADDITION to the existing signing period, not replacing it — that’s what been discussed by the NCAA in recent years. There’s nothing that would force a kid to sign early instead of waiting until the later signing period if that’s his preference. Conversely, if a kid is dead-set on his school and just wants to avoid the hassle of dealing with recruiting calls and emails and texts for an additional 3-4 months, why not let him sign on the dotted line early? It would also guarantee him a spot.

I agree that it could get sticky with coaches coming and going and I’d be in favor of the NCAA issuing a rule allowing commits whose coaches were fired (or who left for another job) to be released from ther commitments.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 24, 2011 4:48 PM CST up reply actions

the problem with an optional early signing period is

that it will eventually become the only signing period. The top schools will work to fill their slots as early as possible so kids will be forced to sign early or get left out.

"You’re talking about things that are real. That’s real. In those other dual meets, it wasn’t real, but now it’s real." ~ Tom Brands regarding the Iowa State dual.

by Kluginator on Jan 24, 2011 4:51 PM CST up reply actions

Yep. We already have an "early" signing period

that is before the final date recruits are required to make the commitment. An optional earlier date automatically becomes the defacto date.

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Jan 24, 2011 4:54 PM CST up reply actions

Fine, whatever.

Let’s just do away with scholarships entirely and let whoever wants to play show up on September 1st and we’ll go from there.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 24, 2011 5:07 PM CST up reply actions

I think you can validly argue when the date should be

Earlier? Later?

But I think you’re prematurely dismissive here. I know when I got a free ride to UI’s Engineering program (before I immediately drank it away) that I didn’t have to sign on the dotted line until very late to accept it. Obviously there’s much more regulation with athletic scholarships, but I don’t think it’s laughable to suggest that actual enrollment/payment be the deciding date.

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Jan 24, 2011 5:23 PM CST up reply actions

Prematurely dismissive? I was only following in the trend you guys had set.

Look, it depends exactly what you’re talking about. There’s already no requirement that players sign on National Signing Day — almost all of them do it then because it’s the first day they can officially commit and they want to secure a spot/get the process over with/whatever. But it’s not a requirement that they sign on that day — they can take their time and sign later in the spring/summer. We saw Seantrel Henderson do it last year and Terrelle Pryor do it a few years ago. Even on the Iowa level, I believe DJK was a late signee. If players want to really take their time and decide late in the day — they can.

If you’re talking about moving Signing Day later in the year and not letting anyone sign until then, well, that seems more problematic. Making the date that late just seems to open up a hornet’s nest of potential logistical concerns. It seems likely to make the current oversigning problems even worse; give coaches even more time to recruit guys and other guys are likely to find themselves left out in the cold

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 24, 2011 9:05 PM CST up reply actions

Well...

The top schools will work to fill their slots as early as possible so kids will be forced to sign early or get left out.

How is this not already the case? Texas will have 75% of their slots for next year filled by the end of February. Other big-name schools won’t be far behind. There’s already considerable pressure to get verbal commitments as soon as possible — it’s going to be there whether there’s an early signing period or not.

On the other hand, there are some very real benefits to an early signing period (stability, peace of mind), some of which are detailed in this column by Andy Staples. It’s not a perfect solution (it would really need to have some accommodation for recruits whose coaches leave/get fired), but I think there are very real benefits that you’re dismissing for a somewhat overblown concern.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 24, 2011 8:51 PM CST up reply actions

That article points out a potential issue, albeit a pretty rare one.

The bigger issue is on the side of the schools. Schools take inventory of their current roster and attempt to address specific needs with each recruiting class.

For instance, we are running low on scholarship WRs heading into next year so we went out and attempted to address that need by gaining 3 verbal commitments in this class. At this stage in the game our need is filled and we aren’t talking to any more kids. We likely had some targets who we told to look elsewhere when we got a commitment from our 3rd WR in this class (a la Penn State with Cooper from DeMatha). This is the way programs with morals recruit.

If one of those were to decommit tomorrow we’d be hurting at that position and would have no time to go out and develop new relationships with kids who are this far along in the recruiting process elsewhere.

Additionally, it gives both sides a better ability to gauge interest from the other side. A primadonna recruit would have less ability to hold schools hostage, just as dickhead coaches would have less ability to hold recruits hostage. Neither would be able to make empty promises because if they weren’t willing to sign the contract then the other would have an idea of where they stand.

by HawKCP on Jan 24, 2011 9:33 PM CST up reply actions

Ross,

Texas may have verbals from 75% of their roster but the kids are still free to change there minds up until signing day. What you are saying is that Universities should be able to lock kids in during their Sophomore or Junior years. As it is now, so many things can happen between signing and first day of practice.

I would not have a problem with an earlier signing day if there were some added protections for the student athlete such as:

1) make the scholarship offer binding for the school even if the kid is injured after signing and can’t play a single minute at college.

2) Allow the student an out, without penalty, if the coach is fired (not just the HC but also the position coach who recruited the kid) and

3) make the scholarship commitment at least a 4 year commitment rather than the current one year deal. They can stipulate that the kid has to maintain a minimum academic performance and show up for practice (try his best) in order to keep the scholarship; similar conditions are placed on many academic scholarships.

Of course, this will never happen because the NCAA is in the business of what’s best for the schools and not what’s best for the athletes.

"You’re talking about things that are real. That’s real. In those other dual meets, it wasn’t real, but now it’s real." ~ Tom Brands regarding the Iowa State dual.

by Kluginator on Jan 26, 2011 8:17 AM CST up reply actions

I think you misunderstand me.

What you are saying is that Universities should be able to lock kids in during their Sophomore or Junior years.

Um, what? Where did I say that? The early signing day I’ve been referring to (and the one that’s been most discussed) would be in DECEMBER of a recruit’s senior year (in addition to the standard signing day in February of their senior year). No one’s saying schools should be able to lock guys in as early as their sophomore or junior years.

And I have no disagreement with you on the other points, but those are different issues.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 26, 2011 8:56 AM CST up reply actions

What you are saying is that Universities should be able to lock kids in during their Sophomore or Junior years.

Where did he say that? I missed that part.

My thoughts on your proposal:
1 – Why would that need to be changed for an early signing period? Can’t a kid who blows out his knee after the current signing day still be dropped like hot potato?

2 – Why should the out count for position coaches? Does this out also count if the position coach if they leave for a promotion? Would they be allowed to follow that position coach if they become a coordinator or HC? This just seems like a huge can of worms to open. What’s the point of a letter if we start adding all kinds of outs?

3 – I’m torn on this one. Seems like you would need to add in all kinds of conditions, and some of them like “show up for practice (try his best)” are rife with subjectivity (the effort part not the attendance part) that would probably make the whole regulation moot.

by PackerHawk on Jan 26, 2011 8:57 AM CST up reply actions

Like most things I say - I have no factual basis to back this up.

From what I’ve heard continuing to talk to recruits after they had given a verbal commitment was one of the things that pissed Ferentz off more than anything when he first got here. In particular, Illinois and Wisconsin seemed to be the most egregious offenders. I can’t recall names. Ferentz eventually realized that the rules state that a verbal commitment technically means nothing and decided that he was going to return the favor, especially toward Wisconsin and Illinois. This year we also got Alston who was a decommit from Pitt but you could also see their situation as being one that would warrant an exception given that they fired their coach despite having probably the sweetest moustache in all of modern college football.

Of course, that’s all secondhand speculation.

by HawKCP on Jan 24, 2011 7:56 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed about Miami seeming desperate to land ANY QB.

They’re trying to get Tom Savage to transfer from Rutgers too. I doubt Rudock decommits, he’ll be smart enough to see through what Miami is doing, hopefully…

by Schubial on Jan 24, 2011 3:26 PM CST up reply actions

Dunno. I think many a recruit could be swayed by a late push from his favorite team

I believe this happens fairly regularly with Iowa’s last 1 or 2 in-state recruits, who have offers from smaller schools but are waiting on an Iowa offer if it comes.

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Jan 24, 2011 3:48 PM CST up reply actions

That's true.

There’s also a bigger difference between Iowa and UNI than there is Iowa and Miami, though.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Jan 24, 2011 3:59 PM CST up reply actions

Not denying the differences between those U choices

I was just not mentioning it, I try to keep my posts succinct and readable.

My only points were that a childhood favorite team holds considerable sway, and that even Iowa does this.

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Jan 24, 2011 4:26 PM CST up reply actions

The difference in pictures

Miami Coeds

University of Iowa Coeds

UNI Coed

"You’re talking about things that are real. That’s real. In those other dual meets, it wasn’t real, but now it’s real." ~ Tom Brands regarding the Iowa State dual.

by Kluginator on Jan 24, 2011 4:35 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

Seems pretty accurate

I remember going to UNI’s Homecoming many years ago because it was sold me as Iowa’s Mardi Gras. It’s not even Iowa’s Apple River. Talent was severly lacking.

(FYI: For readers under 25, I highly recommend an Apple River trip)

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Jan 24, 2011 4:57 PM CST up reply actions