Several points to make:
Many Cyclone fans whose lives are ruined with hatred every time UNI beats ISU probably never picked up a basketball in their lives and couldn't make 5 out of 10 free throws if their lives depended on it. In other words, they don't know basketball very well, and they don't understand the current picture in American basketball. That picture is this: there are many, many good high school basketball players across the country and the midwest, more so than was probably the case 20 or 30 years ago. Kids start specializing in basketball when they're in diapers today, and elementary, middle school, rec programs are much more intensely managed and coached up these days. The result? Div. 1 colleges have a larger pool to recruit from. The rosters of the big schools cannot accommodate all of the really good players. And, the talent spread between a so-called 5 star recruit and and 4 or 3 star is not that vast. Hence, more parity.
It's also been proven time and time again that, save for Duke, UNC and small handful of iconic programs, the so-called high ratings assigned to recruiting classes by some mysterious all-knowing recruiting service don't mean squat. Some BCS school saying they've got the 19th rated recruiting class in the country is meaningless. Clones tend to get too caught up in this recruiting ranking charade. Look at Drake, claiming they have the best recruiting class in the MVC last year and maybe this year. I know they may have some coaching issues, but really, could such a claim be more worthless?
Many Clones are right: it starts with the coaching staff. Within that, the questions/issues are:
- Are they recruiting true winners? Guys with a refuse to lose mentality? Or are they recruiting purely physical or athletic specimens who are otherwise short on many intangibles that good coaches can spot?
- Continuity. Can a school and coach keep their players for four years? ISU cannot, at least during the past 7 or so years. That is the biggest determinant of ISU's problems, in my book. Too many guys bolting after a year or two, too much disruption in chemistry, cohesiveness and buy-in.
For me, give me 10 regional guys who were 2 or 3 star performers in high school , or maybe even off the radar, who have the requisite skill base that can be coached up, and let me keep them for four years vs. assembling a collection of transfers and NBA wannabes who have no real affinity for the university or playing a very defined role on a team, and doing it balls out each night.
I know people will say, yeah Purple that's all good, but we have to have superior athletes compared to UNI to compete in the Big XII vs. the little ol' MVC. Three responses: A) Where has that gotten you so far? B) Tell that to Butler, Wisconsin, VCU, etc. C) ISU's glory days? Hoiberg, Hornacek, etc. who played four years, were not blue chippers but became legends among the fandom for their overachieving, coachability and, at the end of the day, winning.
My overall point: Being in a BCS conference, especially in basketball with its wider parity compared to football, does not bestow some "entitlement" to beating the smaller foes. Size counts for something, but it's certainly not the be all/end all.
