Which option would you prefer?

[buf87]

Gearing up for 1 big year at Nationals or consistence?

KJ's 1st year
Iowa State was loaded with Fanthorpe, Mueller, Varner, Zabriskie, C Sanderson, Gallick. and Burk and Curran as seniors
We placed 3rd with 3 AA - 2 champs and a runnerup (Long)
Underclassmen were Long and Reader, Dalton Jensen and 25 guys on the roster

We know what happened next

Oklahoma tried doing it this year with Patterson, Lester, Maple, Howe and Rutt and got 10th and really only have Brewer coming back for leadership

I feel many teams are taking this approach because it is tough to crack the consistence of Penn State, Minnesota, Iowa, Ok State.

Ohio State seems to be gearing up for a big year redshirt Hunter Stieber.

Should we be trying for the big year or stay with 2-4 seniors every year and maintain balance?

 

[Wesley]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

Is their parity in the wrestling ranks?

 

[LindenCy]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

Balance building to elite status. In other words, consistent team results, while slowly (I'm ok with quickly), uprgrading the lineup every year as best we can.

 

[buf87]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

I think after the top 4, there is a lot of parity.
I put Penn State, Ok State, Minnesota and Iowa in the top 4, maybe add Cornell
then
Ohio State, Missouri, Iowa State, Michigan, Edinboro, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Illinois trying to move in
UNI, Virginia, NDSU, Old Dominion and others getting stronger

 

[Judoka]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

Balance building to elite status. In other words, consistent team results, while slowly (I'm ok with quickly), uprgrading the lineup every year as best we can.

The problem is scholarships. When you've only got 9.9 scholarships to spread over 5 classes it is tough to get multipple elite guys per class, especially if you have to draw them in from out of state (since it takes a higher percentage of a scholie to match what they'd pay in in-state tuition in their home state)

 

[buf87]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

And not having big misses. A lot of money lost for a year tied up with McCauley and didn't get any performance.

A lot of money tied up in Ryak and Cozart, but did have 2 and 1 year respectively on the mat.

 

[LindenCy]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

The problem is scholarships. When you've only got 9.9 scholarships to spread over 5 classes it is tough to get multipple elite guys per class, especially if you have to draw them in from out of state (since it takes a higher percentage of a scholie to match what they'd pay in in-state tuition in their home state)

Yeah, that is true, but you can build depth and balance and upgrade where you can, even if that is not the top recruits every year. I maybe shouldn't have used the word elite.

I also realize I basically didn't say much in the original post. I would just rather see us consistently competitive rather than build for one year and have down years. The thing I love about wrestling is that even when your team is down, however, you usually have individuals to root for.

 

[howellc33]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

I would love to contend for a title every year-who wouldn't? But realistically, to be good every year is better than being elite for just one.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

We use to be good every year.

 

[kingcy]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

What is wrong with being in with the top group? It can be done.

 

[buf87]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

I agree it can be done. I hope we get there. It takes time to get back there and there are a lot of teams trying.

Couple things that hurt us (I think) are we are not in the Big 10. I think that is a huge draw for elite high school kids. I do hope the ACC/Big 12 qualifier goes though. I think that would be a big step in the right direction.

Also not many Iowa elite high school kids. Next year really only Freddy Stroker. Need to compete with out of state tuition issues for recruits

 

[ISU22CY]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

Consistance... Too much to risk trying to go for one big class.

 

[wesley_w]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

I've always been curious about scholarship allocations. Do you think there are multiple guys with full rides and a bunch of guys with .3 or .4 or does no one get a full ride? It just seems like there has to be a lot of guys working their ***** off in the room with almost no financial aid.
I've wondered if there is bidding going on for elite recruits, do most of them get a full scholarship right away?

 

[cloneswillwin]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

Posted in another thread - just so everyone knows the facts. We haven't been consistently in the top 3 since Nichols and Gibbons (30 years ago)

-Last 30 years we have been a consistent top 10 team (6 out of 30 years outside top 10), a frequent top 5 team (15 of the 30 years) and a rare title contender (top 2 finishes 4 times in 30 years)
-I do believe the landscape of college wrestling has changed significantly - parity has been created by the reduction in D1 teams
-9.9 scholarships and 80 d1 schools so 800 scholarships total to distribute over 5 years assuming RS - 160 kids get scholarships each year on average - think of that the top 150 seniors each year have to get distributed across all the schools

 

[buf87]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

I think a lot off kids are getting .2 to .4 for scholarships.

 

[Judoka]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

I've always been curious about scholarship allocations. Do you think there are multiple guys with full rides and a bunch of guys with .3 or .4 or does no one get a full ride? It just seems like there has to be a lot of guys working their ***** off in the room with almost no financial aid.
I've wondered if there is bidding going on for elite recruits, do most of them get a full scholarship right away?

Very few guys in college wrestling are on full rides. But it is definetely safe to say there is bidding for top recruits. Especially with the in-state/out of state difference. We might have to give a guy from, say, Ohio, a .6 schollie just to equal what it would cost him out of pocket to walk on at Ohio State.

 

[Judoka]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

To better answer the question though... I think I prefer the Minnesota model of having a lineup full of guys ranked in the 6-15 range who give you a chance to have a good run and win it, but you don't have all your eggs in one basket if somebody doesn't pan out.

 

[cloneswillwin]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

To better answer the question though... I think I prefer the Minnesota model of having a lineup full of guys ranked in the 6-15 range who give you a chance to have a good run and win it, but you don't have all your eggs in one basket if somebody doesn't pan out.

Agree completely - Iowa and Penn State recent runs were based on 2 for 1 recruiting, we are back to normal now. Okie state and Minn have the blue print for long term success (the same blue print Iowa is back to having now) UNI's 2 for 1 run is coming to an end soon as well best they could do is top out at 14th with a disappointing NCAA Tourney.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

So we are back if we hit Top ten?

 

[buf87]

Re: Which option would you perfer?

Also Minnesota is doing it with Minnesota kids (Thorns, Ness, Steinhaus, Zilverberg, Branacle, Nelson) Others are nearby Dakotas including Storley and Schiller. That is probably what I like most about the Minnesota program