I couldn't agree more. Stars mean nothing compared to a season or 2 of seeing exactly what they can do against high level competition.
*****2026-27 Transfer Portal News*****
- Thread starter QChawks
- Start date
Aren't there fewer than 60 former 4/5 stars in the portal? Obviously we need to go after them but we also need to really hit home runs with diamonds in the rough like Chit Chat.
Again, what impact players have we lost? Are we not returning our 4 best players, 3 starters and Houston off the bench? And we are bringing in by all accounts a top 10-15 player to replace Hannah. The highest recruit we've ever had besides CC. Can we replace Deals 5 pts and 39% shooting off the bench with one of the 2000 portal players and a lot of money? I'd say our chances are pretty good. Same with Levin and Tegan. USC, UCLA, Michigan, Ohio St and Maryland are always going to be tough. Levin averaged 1.2 pts on 33% shooting. Teagan averaged 1.5 pts. I'm also a realist in how the world is today. Over half the entire women's players are in the portal right now. So yes, we have plenty of options and by all accounts plenty of money. Tennessee is replacing their ENTIRE roster. That's a problem. If that was the case yes, I'd be worried. If I was Iowa St yes, I'd be worried losing 10 players. We are not.
I asked Google Gemini and Claude to analyze last year's D1 wbb portal. Here's Gemini. My response to this post will be Claude's thoughts. All of this could be hallucinatory babble.
The 2025 women's NCAA Division I transfer portal was characterized by a massive opening-day surge and a compressed decision-making window. Last year, the portal officially opened on March 17, 2025 (the Monday after Selection Sunday) and remained open for 30 days.
Analysis of the timing and commitment speeds reveals a "two-tier" speed system:
Last year's Women’s NCAA Division I transfer portal (the 2025 cycle) was defined by an immediate surge in entries followed by a staggered wave of commitments that peaked roughly two weeks after the portal opened.
While over 1,100 players entered the portal on the very first day (March 17, 2025), the actual commitment process took significantly longer for the average athlete.
The 2025 women's NCAA Division I transfer portal was characterized by a massive opening-day surge and a compressed decision-making window. Last year, the portal officially opened on March 17, 2025 (the Monday after Selection Sunday) and remained open for 30 days.
Analysis of the timing and commitment speeds reveals a "two-tier" speed system:
1. The Opening Day Rush
The portal saw immediate high-volume activity. On the very first day it opened in 2025:- Over 1,100 players entered the portal within the first 24 hours.
- This represented nearly 10% of all Division I women's basketball players making their intentions known immediately.
- By the time the window closed in late April, the total number of entries exceeded 1,500.
2. Commitment Timelines: How Fast Did They Move?
While players entered the portal quickly, the "commitment" phase varied based on the player's caliber.| Player Profile | Average Time to Commit | Typical Motivation |
| "Instant Impact" Stars | 1–2 Weeks | Top-tier players (like Sa'Myah Smith or Olivia Miles) often had "tampering" rumors or immediate high-major offers, leading to commitments within 7–14 days. |
| Rotation Starters | 2–4 Weeks | These players typically took visits and waited for top-tier spots to fill before claiming the next best available scholarships. |
| Depth/Role Players | 4+ Weeks | Many players in this category remained in the portal well into May and June, often waiting for rosters to stabilize or for mid-major programs to finish their recruiting cycles. |
3. Key Observations from Last Year
- The "Coaching Change" Loophole: Players whose coaches were fired or left for other jobs had a separate 30-day window. This led to "waves" of commitments; for example, when Tennessee or Miami changed coaches, a cluster of players entered and committed in a distinct secondary cycle.
- Graduate Transfer Speed: Grad transfers historically moved the fastest. Because they are often looking for a specific one-year "win-now" situation or a specific academic program, their turnaround from entry to commitment was frequently under 10 days.
- The "Summer Deadline": While there is no NCAA-mandated "commitment deadline," the functional deadline for most players was early June. Programs generally want transfers on campus for summer workouts and "bridge" semesters, which forced the majority of portal residents to sign by late May.
4. Evolution for 2026
It is worth noting that for the current 2026 cycle, the NCAA has shortened the window even further to 15 days (opening the day after the National Championship). This is expected to make the "commitment speed" even more aggressive than what we saw last year, as the "shopping window" has effectively been cut in half.Last year's Women’s NCAA Division I transfer portal (the 2025 cycle) was defined by an immediate surge in entries followed by a staggered wave of commitments that peaked roughly two weeks after the portal opened.
While over 1,100 players entered the portal on the very first day (March 17, 2025), the actual commitment process took significantly longer for the average athlete.
Commitment Timeline Analysis
Based on last year's tracking data, here is the distribution of how soon players committed after the portal opened:- The Elite Wave (Week 1): Roughly 12% of players committed within the first seven days. These were typically "pre-scouted" stars or graduate transfers who already had a clear destination in mind (often rumored as having been discussed via "tampering" before the portal officially opened).
- The Power Surge (Week 2): This was the busiest window, with 23% of all commitments occurring between days 8 and 14. As the first-round NCAA tournament losers exited the post-season, coaching staffs pivoted entirely to the portal, leading to the highest single-week volume of signings.
- The Mid-Cycle Stabilization (Weeks 3–4): By the end of the first month, approximately 72% of all transfers had found their new homes. This period included most rotation-level players and those waiting for the "domino effect" of the stars to finish.
- The Long Tail (Month 2+): The remaining 28% of players—often depth pieces or those from mid-major programs—remained in the portal well into May and June.
Why the 2-Week Mark?
The "sweet spot" for a commitment was day 14. This allowed players enough time to:- Process initial interest: Top players often received 50+ calls in the first 24 hours.
- Take official visits: Most players took 1–2 campus visits during the first weekend after the portal opened.
- Ensure roster spots: Players were incentivized to move before their preferred school's scholarship slots were filled by other transfers.
Comparison: 2025 vs. 2026
For the current 2026 cycle, the NCAA has officially shortened the entry window to only 15 days. This change is expected to compress the commitment timeline even further, forcing players to make decisions in nearly half the time they had last year.
Claude's Analysis: Good — now I have solid data. Let me note the key pieces: the 2024-25 portal opened March 25, 2025, and closed April 23; by April 18 there were 1,421 entries and 369 commitments (~26% commit rate); and Olivia Miles committed to TCU quickly during the window. The 2025-26 portal just opened April 6, 2026. Let me build the chart now.Here's the full picture of the 2024–25 WBB transfer portal cycle (portal open: March 25–April 23, 2025):
The flood was immediate. Names did not trickle into the portal — they flooded it. According to data from On3, there were already 1,000 names in the portal by noon on opening day. By the end of the 30-day window, the total reached 1,534 players across 335 D-I schools, with 83 later withdrawing and 53 returning to the same school.
Commitments lagged entries but came fast. By April 18 (day 24 of the window), there were 1,421 portal entries and 369 commitments — about 26%. The pace was uneven: the first week saw mostly entries, with commitments accelerating in weeks two and three as campus visits concluded. High-profile players typically committed within 7–14 days. MiLaysia Fulwiley committed to LSU just 8 days after entering the portal.
Commitments continued well after the window closed. There is no deadline for a player to commit after entering the portal — recruits can continue to trickle in long after the window closes, as they did last season. For example, one men's guard signed with Ole Miss on June 4. On the women's side, notable players who used the portal last season included Olivia Miles (Notre Dame to TCU), Ta'Niya Latson (Florida State to South Carolina), Serah Williams (Wisconsin to UConn), and Cotie McMahon (Ohio State to Ole Miss).
The rules have since changed dramatically. The 15-day window for the 2026 cycle marks a notable change from the previous 30-day window. The new process enables programs to maintain stable rosters without concern over player departures during tournaments. This year's portal, which opened April 6, 2026, already had 1,193 players — over 23% of all D-I rosters — by 8:30 p.m. on the first day.
The bottom line: in 2025, the typical committed player decided within 2–4 weeks of the portal opening, elite players often within the first week, and a meaningful tail of decisions ran through the summer.
The flood was immediate. Names did not trickle into the portal — they flooded it. According to data from On3, there were already 1,000 names in the portal by noon on opening day. By the end of the 30-day window, the total reached 1,534 players across 335 D-I schools, with 83 later withdrawing and 53 returning to the same school.
Commitments lagged entries but came fast. By April 18 (day 24 of the window), there were 1,421 portal entries and 369 commitments — about 26%. The pace was uneven: the first week saw mostly entries, with commitments accelerating in weeks two and three as campus visits concluded. High-profile players typically committed within 7–14 days. MiLaysia Fulwiley committed to LSU just 8 days after entering the portal.
Commitments continued well after the window closed. There is no deadline for a player to commit after entering the portal — recruits can continue to trickle in long after the window closes, as they did last season. For example, one men's guard signed with Ole Miss on June 4. On the women's side, notable players who used the portal last season included Olivia Miles (Notre Dame to TCU), Ta'Niya Latson (Florida State to South Carolina), Serah Williams (Wisconsin to UConn), and Cotie McMahon (Ohio State to Ole Miss).
The rules have since changed dramatically. The 15-day window for the 2026 cycle marks a notable change from the previous 30-day window. The new process enables programs to maintain stable rosters without concern over player departures during tournaments. This year's portal, which opened April 6, 2026, already had 1,193 players — over 23% of all D-I rosters — by 8:30 p.m. on the first day.
The bottom line: in 2025, the typical committed player decided within 2–4 weeks of the portal opening, elite players often within the first week, and a meaningful tail of decisions ran through the summer.
A good pressing team is going to do that to basically everyone.
Iowa actually did ok against press teams. Ohio State averaged 21 forced turnovers a game. Iowa had 15 against them.
Chit-Chat is a press breaker. Very rarely got trapped. Hannah played a big role as well. I think Strem was working on handles with that private coach last week, so that's probably going to continue, and she will keep getting better. Nice to see.
Iowa against the press this year looked a million times better than against the press the year before.
I was just about to say this. I still am having nightmares about that Tennessee game last year
It all started in that Rhode Island game when they had great success and then it felt like the next 10 games everyone used the press against Iowa and they kept turning it over and over and over.I was just about to say this. I still am having nightmares about that Tennessee game last year
Depends on what your expectations are.
This sounds nice and I think it makes sense in terms of building continuity and stability and just assessing how they adjust.
The problem (one of them) is that it avoids coaching accountability for development. The don’t develop just chalk it up to they weren’t good enough.
Let’s see what Adde and Emely do with their new teams. My guess is they do extremely well.
And in the women’s game it’s a bit different. You gotta have top level talent to get to that elite level. You just must. Along with size.
It’s why it’s disappointing that a player the caliber of Addy Brown isn’t considering Iowa. That’s an elite talent.
The fear or probability is Iowa gets some nice complimentary pieces in the portal. But no one that really moves the needle.
It’s why it’s disappointing that a player the caliber of Addy Brown isn’t considering Iowa. That’s an elite talent.
The fear or probability is Iowa gets some nice complimentary pieces in the portal. But no one that really moves the needle.
My expectations are that Iowa will get much better value than they received from those 2. Emely was a cancer and Addie was massively overpaid and in line for a huge cut which she and her handlers balked at.
Last edited:
Certainly can see that but even when they aren't pressing when they play aggressive defense we struggle with ball handling... doesn't always cause a turnover but a couple guards with good handles would help. Just what I see watching the games I guess.
Can't argue with much of what you said here, EXCEPT this very important point. Using Deal as an example. Can we replace her points per game? sure we can. Of course the issue there is this was her first year and many freshman struggle, but she did show some flashes of real promise. 17-18 against Oregon, and 20 against a good OSU team as example. So the question is, what could she become with an off season of work and more opportunity as a more seasoned player. We'll probably never know, but lots of freshman make a big jump in year two, (Ava is a good example). So on one hand we're replacing her 5 pt/GM, but what is her ceiling. I don't think CCW had big numbers her freshman year, but with the right urging from Jan and the opportunity she became a solid starter. Also using Levin and Mallegni as examples is hard to make any kind of a judgement because they didn't play 90% 0f the time. Could they be better with more opportunity? I'd have loved to see Levin get a shot at 10 minutes a game total subbing both backcourt spots. Its moot at this point anyway.
I would sure hope they play better after another year of work... doesn't mean they were handled wrong...they should be better.
Dani Carnegie played her freshman year at Georgia Tech. Was ACC Sixth player of the year and All-ACC freshman team. She played with Chit Chat and was coached by Barrett. That’s why we have an in with Carnegie.
If Greenway lost interest in Iowa because of the coaches recruiting strategy (which I think is likely) I would point to JJ’s full court press to sign Jenica Lewis, a PG in the same class, and not to combo guard Addie Deal’s earlier commitment.
Unless Greenway shares her thoughts, we may never know for sure.
Also, IMO pursuit of Lewis as a top class of 2026 PG target was not necessarily a bad decision (Iowa prep, highly skilled, strong interest) but damn, Lewis had other ideas, Greenway got away, and Iowa signed neither.
Yeah. Ohio State actually had to abandon the press against Iowa because it was killing them.
I'd rather get some of these players as sophomores or juniors. Hopefully the door isn't completely shut for all of them.
I was a big Deal fan along with you and figured being a quote 5 star player had penciled her into the lineup. Then I saw her play. Definitely has some skills and agree 100% she will get better, which is a shame she wouldn’t/didn’t stick around. I’m sure by the time she is a Sr somewhere she’ll average 14-15 pts a game. And we’ll all lament letting her get away but I’m sure she was encouraged to stay but chose not to. Again, I’m guessing she would have been 1st in line for that 3rd guard position but also not guaranteed anything which is also the right thing. She (or her agent) chose to take her ball and go elsewhere.
I think people are overlooking the money aspects with Addie as well.
I think we all understand that at this point, just as BigZ brought up her agent. The agent is going to be more concerned about the $ (his cut) then anything else...
It can feel like that. Certainly there was stupid turnovers at points, it it wasn't as bad as your memory thinks it was.
Part of it is Iowa's offensive strategy. The more you pass the more turnovers you are going to have. That's the negative to that style of play. The positive is more open open looks, more fouls on the opposing team, etc.
This idea of not losing any impact players is also shortsighted. Who on thjs roster other than AVa is a true difference maker? Only one with WNBA potential at this point.
It’s only going into year 3 but Iowa is kinda just churning right now with recruiting and the roster. JJ understands the. Addie, Emely, and the star guards/wings she was recruiting but missed out on show she understands what’s needed. A talent boost. IF the expectation is to get to that elite level.
It’s only going into year 3 but Iowa is kinda just churning right now with recruiting and the roster. JJ understands the. Addie, Emely, and the star guards/wings she was recruiting but missed out on show she understands what’s needed. A talent boost. IF the expectation is to get to that elite level.
The talk is we need bodies, starters and support players. Hannah Wickstrom from UC Riverside might be a candidate. She is 5'10" and a sophomore. A friend of mine has seen her play several times. 49% from the field; 34% from the 3; 83% from the line. She averaged 23.4 points per game, obviously against lesser competition. She averaged 7.3 rebounds,and had 80 assists,92 turnovers and 79 steals for the season. She isn't a star but solid. Most likely she will not demand a high portal fee. She is from Australia, again opening up a potential pipeline.
I want to address one of your points you brought up.
What am I missing here?
First, are you telling me Brandon Clay has power over all these rankings services? As far as I recall, Deal was always called a consensus 5-Star.
Name ___ASGR__PN __JRAS __ESPN __TSB __247S __ BSBB __ON3 __Avg Rank
Addie Deal _ 17 ___8 ____23 _____23 ____ 9 ____23 _____ 22 ___ _15 _____ 17.50
Next, coaches use the eyeball test when they eval players. The star rating only indicates. It does not settle the score. It's an absolute must to see if they player fits your system. Just because one person says XYZ about a person doesn't mean it's in alignment with your XYZ. What one person calls athletic, another does not. It's just that simple.
Admit i did not read the whole thread yet, only bits and pieces when i had time primarily from all the bad karma and bad takes being spread about this situation. So I may have missed a key component of why the uproar on Clay. Yes, he has his hands in many pots. Not that hard to figure out. Yes, they most likely are a conflict. Like I said, Clay should have very little input as to how the coaches themselves rate Deal.
Pretty sure coaches aren't grading stars when they do eval. Jan speaks about McW notes that were lost. Jan's not thinking of, oh that's a 5-Star pass yada, yada, yada. They're thinking more like Bluder and that's a beautiful skill or it needs work here, here and here. There's just too many pieces to a player's puzzle and how it fits into the HC's system to rely on a simple star system.
Are you also saying Jan fell for this 5-Star scheme as well? Ask yourself, what kind of coach would do such a thing?
EDIT: Btw, I may have misunderstood your intent. Replied as how I understood it.
Last edited:
Let me ask you a question in return, do you think these coaches are infallible to group think? NASA engineers and physicists can succumb to this social psychological condition but not basketball coaches?
Watch Deal around the time of her commitment in 2024 as a junior in high school. Things happened. Is what it is.
I still believe that recruiting players from HS can't be called a mistake until those players are in year 3 somewhere. One of those "misses" is bound to be a make down the road because you have built that relationship. Besides, Jan would have been run over coals not going for it in that first recruiting cycle following the Clark era. Had to do it, and had to follow through on the recruiting that started long before Bluder retired.
The trade-up from Guyton to Wright was a big win, but up to that point, they still thought Deal could play the 1 (at least in shared minutes). Nobody could really anticipate Deal showing up without the quickness she had as a younger player. It just sort of missed. They still needed a potential star player, so getting Woliczko deserves a lot of credit. Developing Heiden into an ABT player deserves credit.
If Woliczko ends up doing well in the level-up, and they find at least one solid big-minutes player, they are poised to do pretty well again. If they score two players they are in the thick of it again.
I still believe that recruiting players from HS can't be called a mistake until those players are in year 3 somewhere. One of those "misses" is bound to be a make down the road because you have built that relationship. Besides, Jan would have been run over coals not going for it in that first recruiting cycle following the Clark era. Had to do it, and had to follow through on the recruiting that started long before Bluder retired.
The trade-up from Guyton to Wright was a big win, but up to that point, they still thought Deal could play the 1 (at least in shared minutes). Nobody could really anticipate Deal showing up without the quickness she had as a younger player. It just sort of missed. They still needed a potential star player, so getting Woliczko deserves a lot of credit. Developing Heiden into an ABT player deserves credit.
If Woliczko ends up doing well in the level-up, and they find at least one solid big-minutes player, they are poised to do pretty well again. If they score two players they are in the thick of it again.
I guess anything is possible. From watching @goIowa tweets, she goes to a lot of locations to see here top young guns as she calls them.
I gave an example regarding McW and her lost notes that's a top of laughter between the Woliczko family and Jan. You can also read Jan's tweets going to see her recruits play.
So on this subject of evaling players, I would say no that Jan is not under the influence of white witchcraft on it.
However, I have other problems with Jan that what you suggest may come into play. That list got even longer after this season.
Thanks, I didn’t quite understand the first post, now that you posted again, please tell me what it is you are trying to accomplish!
Y’all are missing some key points with Addie. 1) she is a year older, in HS that matters a lot. 2) remember her recruitment… she called Iowa. 3)there were gaps/questions with her elite level resume. JJ was right to take a swing on her because even with all those notes she was likely a top 50 recruit… just turned out she was more developmental than expected. She’ll probably round out into a nice player before she’s done. I am a big fan and hope she does. I wish she would have stuck with the process here at Iowa but the decision was hers (or her rents).
Think it's pretty obvious Jan is not going to be duped by Brandon Clay's rating of Deal. She does her own eval/conclusion of how Deal rates out according to JJ's system(s). EDIT: Actually when Deal committed it was according to Bluder's system(s).
Last edited:
