A few people have pointed out that we've missed on a number of high priority HS guys. And that is true. I don't see that as being hyper-critical. I'm sure the staff will get their share.
Recruit Lists v2.0
- Thread starter SvrWxCy
- Start date
If we treated every 3 star project like a 5 star McD AA I'd have a major problem with that.
RV was the only high priority guy we had last year. The staff made that known but stopping the recruitment of every single other prospect to go after him. Whether that was a good choice or not, they could have gone and gotten a lesser player with that time if they wanted. People in this thread are questioning Matt A's recruiting ability, which is absurd to me.
No player who you decide to stop recruiting altogether for any period of time is "high priority."
I can see that. I acknowledged in my post that we missed guys because of a strategic decision to go 100% in on Vaughn, but that's not the only reason we missed on guys.
I'm not saying we can't recruit. My argument is that we have no one on this staff that has a track record of consistently landing good HS players.
Some of it is due to focusing on transfers, but you have to remember that it isn't an either/or thing because transfer recruiting happens for a period of about 6 weeks, during a time that is usually pretty slow in HS recruiting anyway.
I agree and believe your recruiting should be judge by the product on the court. That said, when you reach a high level as a program, opportunity cost means your recruiting is as much about your misses as it is who you got. I am very content with how things are going, but acknowledge our quest to unseat KU and being FF favorites would benefit from a higher hit rate on our top wants.
Last edited:
Not having a track record without much opportunity doesn't mean much. Do you really think Matt A couldn't go get a top 150 player if given a year and not just a last ditch heave in January?
You don't say that it is THE reason, but that statement is pretty dramatic for having zero evidence.
Our coaches have had opportunity to land HS players. Mann has been here for 3+ recruiting seasons. He brought Percy and helped with Morris. Not bad. Not great.
Matt A landed Okoro, Sledge and probably helped with Niang some. He's done some good things in the transfer and juco markets, which is great. I'm not convinced that Fred couldn't have landed many of the transfers by himself, but whatever. Either way, he's doing a great job with the free agency market.
Doc has never been known as a good recruiter. He specializes in juco's. Hopefully he can land some stud juco players. I think we all agree that Hogue > than a HS player that never makes an impact. Also, Doc is making his mark on our team defensively, IMO.
Thomas and Custer were both TJ recruits. That's half of the HS players that we've landed under this staff who have been recruiting "hits".
It is what it is. I get that fact that we're winning which is all that really counts. Like I said earlier, I don't care if we are 100% transfers. Just win.
But I'm not going to say we're good at HS recruiting either. We just haven't turned the corner in that area yet.
So are you counting FH or not as a coach recruiting HS? Because if so you have to count Niang, Custer, and Thomas.
And Matt A should count Niang as well. That's his area.
And Mann gets Morris and SDW.
Can't argue Doc, he was brought in to coach not recruit.
Do you honestly think that the staff is incapable of getting good high school recruits? I think it is obvious that they are very good at it and the last year they put all their eggs in one basket and it backfired.
I think to this point it can be confidently said that the staff is very good at evaluating talent; the jury is still out on their ability to land that talent (from HS at least).
Here is a partial list of schools in the last 2 years that have landed higher ranked recruits than ISU has in that time (via Rivals):
Maryland, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Stanford, UNLV, Xavier, NC St, LSU, USC, SMU, Missouri, Memphis, Arkansas, Illinois, Cal. Not exactly blue bloods, this bunch.
Not saying I would trade Niang for any of these guys, just going on recruit ranking and probable recruiting competition.
RV wasn't the only high priority. Jaylen Johnson and Reid Travis were certainly high priorities until they committed to other programs. Fortunately, Jameel McKay became available to fill the frontcourt need for the 2014 class.
I guess that raises the question of does it count against a recruiter if a player just isn't interested in your school. With players that highly ranked, some are just going to have certain favorites that we can't compete with. Not many elite guys grew up wanting to go play for McDermott and ISU. After success we might finally have one in Jerry Myles.
Does anyone think that the staff can't or won't sign highly ranked players every single year out of high school? I would guess no? Use your intuition, because we only have 4 4 star players in our last 3 classes out of 7 scholarships used on HS prospects.
For those who pay attention to HS player rankings, I believe next year will be the third straight year we have a top 100/125 recruit, and four in all depending on whose rankings you buy into. Not sure we've ever had four higher rated players on one team than Niang, Morris, Thomas, and Custer. No one can argue with the results Niang and Morris have put up, and for my money Thomas did what was asked of him
Not sure what some people are complaining about
Not sure what some people are complaining about
Sorry man Custer and Thomas don't count because TJ recruited them at one point. Monte doesn't count because he's the only guy Mann has ever recruited and Roy Marble delivered him to Ames. Niang doesn't count FH recruited him.
Last edited:
Don't understand this attitude. No one is arguing with how good Iowa State players have been, or how good the staff seems to be at identifying under-valued talent. I bet we have the best group of 50-100 ranked players in the country.
Iowa State has gone to the tourney 3 years running, won games in each one, and has one of the most respected young coaches in the game. Despite that, lesser to comparable programs (Maryland, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Stanford, UNLV, Xavier, NC St, LSU, USC, SMU, Missouri, Memphis, Arkansas, Illinois, Cal) are pulling in higher regarded recruits.
Sure, the real interest is in how good those players are and how good a team you can make. But without a doubt we should be able to recruit with the group of schools listed above. I realize we're at a disadvantage as Iowa produces very few high level recruits. But if Maryland can pull in top 40 recruits, we certainly should as well.
