FB: American Rivers Conference

[New Storm]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

I really can't agree, if I understand your point, that every player that Central recruits and adds to their roster makes an impact.  Further I think its fair to speculate that the have a fairly good feel who will pan out...allowing that there always are suprises.

The real point is that among the available pool of good players to be recruited, who are likely to choose an IIAC school...a kid from that pool will tend toward the Wartburgs and Centrals all else being equal.

A random thought just occurred.  Consider USC..over the last several years, they have phenomenal recruiting classes...top RB after top RB for example.  At some point you'd think a kid would not want to look up a depth chart that is 5 deep with HS All-everythings...but they keep coming.

Good teams attract kids with a sort of magnetic pull from all the winning.

To compete, a coach from the opposition has to offer a pretty compelling argument.

Lake Okoboji boat rides loaded with booze and babes...oh wait, that's ICCC that offers that...not IIAC coaches trying to get that great recruit.  As far as I know!!!

But it might be worth a try

[the_mayne_event]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

It isn't necessarily unethical to recruit a large batch of kids...it is questionably ethical to promise an opportunity to a kid that a coach can only see as a practice fodder kid.

In D1, they have a cateogory for this type of kid, it's called a walk-on.  Although, yes, kids get strung along in every level...

In D3, I would think a coach should be "sensitive" enough to be honest with a kid an his chances.  There are no scholarships, no big money.  Kids playing D3, in many cases, don't want to stop playing.  Since it's a kid's family's money not the school's money paying his way, I think a kid is entitled to a bit more transparency from a D3 coach.

Not that will ever happen...

you make a good point but in the case of Coach Mc it was always told to my son that you will have the chance to compete and the best player will get the PT.  I think the student has to take the time to evaluate his position.  Is he good enough to earn PT? Is he dedicated to earning the PT?  Those are only questions that the student can answer. 

We can debate this next week in person.  

I can't many kids being honests evaluators of their own ability.  As W-H mentioned, coaches have the benefit of film.  They can tell a kid that they will get the "opportunity" to compete.  Who doesn't say that?

Realistically coaches estsablish a recruiting list and rank them.  They'll string as many as they can along hoping to get all on their list.  When number 1 drops commits elsewhere, he drops off and #2 moves up.

In many cases kids aspiring to continue to play D3 recruit themselves, filling in online forms and sending tape.  If after evaluting this the receiving coach, in my opinion, ought to be up front as to the kids place in the pecking order...to the extent that the coach would divulge, "you are the 3rd QB on our list"...giving the kid the opportunity to keep looking to find some school that he is number 1 on their list...provided it also meets his academic needs.

This will NEVER happen

does a kid looking to play want to hear this?  they will wonder where they are on the recruiting tree after talking to EVERY coach.

[Purple Heys]

Funny...I would have thought to be Kanigget fan, being an a$$hole was a prerequisite.

     

Heys, you beat every Kohawk on the board to the punch.  Maybe every non-Knight IIAC'er.

Deal with it brother...it may not be the last time Cornell beats Coe.  Ask ShowMe.

 

[Purple Heys]

Just want to let y'all know I'm doing my part in the drive to 1300 from the SD airport...travelling to Minnie-sodah.

I'll be in Mt. Vernon Friday night.

Go Rams!   8)

[Purple Heys]

Funny...I would have thought to be Kanigget fan, being an a$$hole was a prerequisite.

     

Heys, you beat every Kohawk on the board to the punch.  Maybe every non-Knight IIAC'er.

Deal with it brother...it may not be the last time Cornell beats Coe.  Ask ShowMe.

 

OK...I'm feeling kind of feisty before I board the plane...kind of ShowMe-like.   

I've tweaked the Kaniggets and the Kohawks.

How can I tweak the Dutch? 

[DutchFan2004]

Ok unethical is a bad word, a bit harsh.

"Monopolizing" is much better. Your right giving away impact players that you know will help your program would be stupid. What coach in there right mind would do that. But when you have a situation when you have a kid that's very good, but you know he will not fit with your system/program and has no potential to do so you should back off. Cause as I said your doing him a disservice by recruiting him any way.

i'm a coach and I know what is to recruit. If i have a kid that will not fit in my program what good is he to me and what good am i to him? You back up and find a kid who will fit in your system/program. When a team is getting 90+ players  a year that "backing off" can't be going on!!! Now I can't blame coaches for doing so, I mean it is a dog eat dog world, but I don't agree with it.

Monopoly is kind of what it is all about.  I think every IIAC coach wants a monopoly on the IIAC crown.  If over recruiting helps then they will do it.  As mentioned before with D3 not have letters of intent and signing players you never know who is going to show up.  Coaches have to evaluate the talent pool to fit their style and if there are 6 players at that position say QB that they think can run their offense and there are about 8 schools now that run the spread Cornell being kind of the one team not doing it then there are 8 IIAC schools (you assume) are going after the same kids you have to recruit all 8.  If you do a good job of recruiting and say get 5 to show up then have you over recruited?  I say you have done your job as maybe some of those kids can play other positions for your team if they do not work out at QB.  I know Wartburg has a WR that played QB two years ago.  Dustyn Baethke moved from RB to Stinger for Dutch.  It is easy to say that the Centrals and Wartburgs over recruit but to get the best possible team I think that there is a certain amount of that that has to happen to stay at the top.  

[Purple Heys]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

It isn't necessarily unethical to recruit a large batch of kids...it is questionably ethical to promise an opportunity to a kid that a coach can only see as a practice fodder kid.

In D1, they have a cateogory for this type of kid, it's called a walk-on.  Although, yes, kids get strung along in every level...

In D3, I would think a coach should be "sensitive" enough to be honest with a kid an his chances.  There are no scholarships, no big money.  Kids playing D3, in many cases, don't want to stop playing.  Since it's a kid's family's money not the school's money paying his way, I think a kid is entitled to a bit more transparency from a D3 coach.

Not that will ever happen...

you make a good point but in the case of Coach Mc it was always told to my son that you will have the chance to compete and the best player will get the PT.  I think the student has to take the time to evaluate his position.  Is he good enough to earn PT? Is he dedicated to earning the PT?  Those are only questions that the student can answer. 

We can debate this next week in person.  

I can't many kids being honests evaluators of their own ability.  As W-H mentioned, coaches have the benefit of film.  They can tell a kid that they will get the "opportunity" to compete.  Who doesn't say that?

Realistically coaches estsablish a recruiting list and rank them.  They'll string as many as they can along hoping to get all on their list.  When number 1 drops commits elsewhere, he drops off and #2 moves up.

In many cases kids aspiring to continue to play D3 recruit themselves, filling in online forms and sending tape.  If after evaluting this the receiving coach, in my opinion, ought to be up front as to the kids place in the pecking order...to the extent that the coach would divulge, "you are the 3rd QB on our list"...giving the kid the opportunity to keep looking to find some school that he is number 1 on their list...provided it also meets his academic needs.

This will NEVER happen

does a kid looking to play want to hear this?  they will wonder where they are on the recruiting tree after talking to EVERY coach.

Wouldn't you...if you could?  Would help narrow your focus, and perhaps avoid the disappointment of 4 years on the sideline perhaps.

It's not unsual to hear a D1 recruit's top 5 list.  Recruited athletes are asked, point blank, who else they are considering by the school recruiting.  Why can't a kid ask the same type of questions in return.  In fact they can, and should.  It could get them more info than just, "everybody gets a chance to compete".  It might save them the hassle of transferring as some kids do over lack of PT.

[Purple Heys]

Gotta board...will re-engage later...

[DutchFan2004]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

I agree that the coach will never say you are # 3 or #4 on our list but if the coach thinks he can do the job adequately and is recruiting him then he must see the talent it takes to play the position.  That is why it is up to the kid to sort of evaluate his talent and commitment.  The coaches are competing for the players and will never get all the players they want.  Lets face it the coach is not going to recruit kids that he does not think can help his team.  So if he is being actively recruited the coach thinks he can help his team.  The coaches don't have that much time to recruit players that will not see the field in the program just to keep them away from another school.  

It isn't necessarily unethical to recruit a large batch of kids...it is questionably ethical to promise an opportunity to a kid that a coach can only see as a practice fodder kid.

In D1, they have a cateogory for this type of kid, it's called a walk-on.  Although, yes, kids get strung along in every level...

In D3, I would think a coach should be "sensitive" enough to be honest with a kid an his chances.  There are no scholarships, no big money.  Kids playing D3, in many cases, don't want to stop playing.  Since it's a kid's family's money not the school's money paying his way, I think a kid is entitled to a bit more transparency from a D3 coach.

Not that will ever happen...

you make a good point but in the case of Coach Mc it was always told to my son that you will have the chance to compete and the best player will get the PT.  I think the student has to take the time to evaluate his position.  Is he good enough to earn PT? Is he dedicated to earning the PT?  Those are only questions that the student can answer. 

We can debate this next week in person.  

I can't many kids being honests evaluators of their own ability.  As W-H mentioned, coaches have the benefit of film.  They can tell a kid that they will get the "opportunity" to compete.  Who doesn't say that?

Realistically coaches estsablish a recruiting list and rank them.  They'll string as many as they can along hoping to get all on their list.  When number 1 drops commits elsewhere, he drops off and #2 moves up.

In many cases kids aspiring to continue to play D3 recruit themselves, filling in online forms and sending tape.  If after evaluting this the receiving coach, in my opinion, ought to be up front as to the kids place in the pecking order...to the extent that the coach would divulge, "you are the 3rd QB on our list"...giving the kid the opportunity to keep looking to find some school that he is number 1 on their list...provided it also meets his academic needs.

This will NEVER happen

[doolittledog]

Gotta board...will re-engage later...

Have a safe flight...enjoy the rainy, 59 degree weather while here 

[Walston Hoover]

I don't think anyone will argue that 90+ is too many, and truthfully, I don't think the number ever got anywhere that close. It was rumored to be that many but I think the number that showed up to camp that year was closer to 75. Still too many IMO. 50-60 I think would be ideal. Many more than that and you end up pissing off more people than you make happy.
Most of you have made some pretty valid points, even if I don't agree.
I came in with a class of around 50-60 IIRC at Wartburg and half of those guys never would have seen the field at any other IIAC school. No offense to those guys, I had a blast with a lot of them.
We had over several guys that did see the field my freshmen year that didn't make it to their soph year. Other issues including being too far away from home, grades, girlfriends (much bigger impact than a lot of people like to admit), and wanting to go to a bigger school.
We ended up our senior year with around 20 guys, and a few of those guys were career backups that rarely saw the field. They just liked being on the team.
From my experience, I would say most of the guys that quit during or after their first year just realize that football in college is a lot different than football in HS, and they can't get by with only showing up on game day anymore (although some could). Others just realize the time commitment is not something they are willing to put forth no matter how much fun it may be.

[Klompen]

When a team is getting 90+ players  a year that "backing off" can't be going on!!!

Since no team in the conference brought in over 57 new players, I'm not sure where the 90+ number comes from.  I think every coach in the conference would love to have at least 90+ players in total and I don't know any coach in the conference that would want 90+ first year players.  I'm guessing that you are criticizing the number of first year players like 90 plus is common.  I've been around a long time and I don't know of any school that regularly brings in 90+ players.  I can tell you thought that the heads of admission offices would line up to hire a coach that could do that.  Iowa is a very competitive market and many of the coaches are not only responsible for their team, but have a certain responsibility to help increase the enrollment numbers.  Can't criticize a guy for doing what he is getting paid to do.  I believe the coaches at Central are very honest with players about their chances for playing time.  Coaches are going to put time and effort into the players they want to recruit and they are going to gladly accept anyone else who is willing/able to pay the bill and do the work, whether they contribute on the field or not.

[Klopenhiemer]

I don't think anyone will argue that 90+ is too many, and truthfully, I don't think the number ever got anywhere that close. It was rumored to be that many but I think the number that showed up to camp that year was closer to 75. Still too many IMO. 50-60 I think would be ideal. Many more than that and you end up pissing off more people than you make happy.
Most of you have made some pretty valid points, even if I don't agree.
I came in with a class of around 50-60 IIRC at Wartburg and half of those guys never would have seen the field at any other IIAC school. No offense to those guys, I had a blast with a lot of them.
We had over several guys that did see the field my freshmen year that didn't make it to their soph year. Other issues including being too far away from home, grades, girlfriends (much bigger impact than a lot of people like to admit), and wanting to go to a bigger school.
We ended up our senior year with around 20 guys, and a few of those guys were career backups that rarely saw the field. They just liked being on the team.
From my experience, I would say most of the guys that quit during or after their first year just realize that football in college is a lot different than football in HS, and they can't get by with only showing up on game day anymore (although some could). Others just realize the time commitment is not something they are willing to put forth no matter how much fun it may be.

I still think this is key to any team staying at the top for a long period time.  You need solid back ups to push the starters.  Only 22 can start but you need another 22 waiting in the wings incase someone goes down.  Football is a contact sport and at any point your number could be called upon.  If you second 22 accepts their role and fullfills it, I think you have a shot to be a very strong ball club.  But hey, others only see the starting 22 and if they are not a part of that then they do not care to be a part of the team.  I however concentrated on one thing, making the bus for away games and after the I let the chips fall where they may.  I was a back up to one my best friends.  It created for some tense moments, but it made the both of us better. 

[New Storm]

I don't think anyone will argue that 90+ is too many, and truthfully, I don't think the number ever got anywhere that close. It was rumored to be that many but I think the number that showed up to camp that year was closer to 75. Still too many IMO. 50-60 I think would be ideal. Many more than that and you end up pissing off more people than you make happy.
Most of you have made some pretty valid points, even if I don't agree.
I came in with a class of around 50-60 IIRC at Wartburg and half of those guys never would have seen the field at any other IIAC school. No offense to those guys, I had a blast with a lot of them.
We had over several guys that did see the field my freshmen year that didn't make it to their soph year. Other issues including being too far away from home, grades, girlfriends (much bigger impact than a lot of people like to admit), and wanting to go to a bigger school.
We ended up our senior year with around 20 guys, and a few of those guys were career backups that rarely saw the field. They just liked being on the team.
From my experience, I would say most of the guys that quit during or after their first year just realize that football in college is a lot different than football in HS, and they can't get by with only showing up on game day anymore (although some could). Others just realize the time commitment is not something they are willing to put forth no matter how much fun it may be.

I still think this is key to any team staying at the top for a long period time.  You need solid back ups to push the starters.  Only 22 can start but you need another 22 waiting in the wings incase someone goes down.  Football is a contact sport and at any point your number could be called upon.  If you second 22 accepts their role and fullfills it, I think you have a shot to be a very strong ball club.  But hey, others only see the starting 22 and if they are not a part of that then they do not care to be a part of the team.  I however concentrated on one thing, making the bus for away games and after the I let the chips fall where they may.  I was a back up to one my best friends.  It created for some tense moments, but it made the both of us better. 

I agree the more the merrier. Lots of freshman do not understand college football so they then give it up. They say its not like HS  they give it up. They can not play right away and they give it up. I'm not as good as I thought and they give it up. There are lots a reasons 

[Ash Park]

Ok so I kind of skimmed over the whole recruitting convo but my opinion is that of course the teams that win are going to bring quite a few recruits and the teams that don't that want to...well recruit your a$$ off and win. I think it really is that simple. Of course you might have to change recruitting tactics and find what works...I think Dillon and his staff probably have changed some things up a little bit and that is why you see a slight increase in numbers. I believe hefty did the same at Luther. Win and recruit recruit recruit!!