It would be very impressive to keep 90 percent of the roster! In this day and age, keeping 70 percent for four years would be impressive considering transfers and dismissals and so on. Will be interesting to see actual numbers in this area.
SIGNING DAY CENTRAL 2024
- Thread starter Connor_Ferguson
- Start date
Moberly really intrigues me. I feel he’s a bit raw, but watching his tape he can make some throws that not everyone can make. Reminds me a tad of Drew Lock. Give him some time to learn the ropes and put on weight, but he could be a good one.
Good thing is we likely wont need him to play early. Kid is also a die hard fan so that’s going to help us keep him around even when he’s not playing
No it's not. DB was better and DL is better. You can tell by who gets rumored to get bags thrown at them.
I love the young guys we have on roster right now, hopefully this class is a great compliment to them.
That may be true for some programs that are all-in on the new transfer fad (Colorado cough-cough). And some years it may work, and some years it may backfire (TCU). We don't have the NIL funds to go chasing after portal stars or blue chip freshmen. Even if we did, I don't think Campbell is that interested in bringing in a bunch of hired mercenaries anyways. Obviously, if we have the opportunity to quick-fill a spot with a quality transfer or juco we'll take it, but we're not going to rely on it.
It seems to me Campbell & staff would rather bring in under-the-radar high school kids with a strong work ethic, build them up, and use NIL funds for retention; not pay-for-play. So far (thankfully), most of the kids that have transferred away from ISU have pursued playing time at smaller schools. In some cases I would consider that to be addition by subtraction if they know they don't have as much of a future on our depth chart as they would like.
Last edited:
Recruiting rankings don't define talent and Iowa State literally had a four-star wideout transfer away because of his spot in the rotation, respectfully
I agree that occasionally this happens. Find the final rankings over the last 10 years and line up recruiting ranks and the pattern is there. Occasionally a team will pop up if the stars ( not recruiting) align and 'have a season'. TCU last year comes to mind.
FYI, Iowa is around a top 25 recruiter for those wondering.
FYI, Iowa is around a top 25 recruiter for those wondering.
The programs that go all in on the portal will find out it's not really sustainable. Kentucky had a run where it seemed like they rebuilt their roster every year with all one-and-done players. Sometimes it worked perfectly, sometimes it never really came together, and a few times things totally blew up. More often than not, teams need some kind of program culture to fix things when they hit some adversity and things start to go off track.
That said, it's part of the landscape. Some programs will manage it well and have success, some programs will have it blow up in their face.
Programs that perennially recruit well should perennially end up in the top 25, sure.
Can think of a few weeks where Iowa State was in the rankings while having 16 total 4-star recruits (by 247) since 2002. Star ratings don't define talent and there isn't a requirement to have any amount in order to be ranked. It's moot.
And? He said consistent winning teams. Not once every once in a while. The top teams get the best recruits. He’s just saying that stars actually do matter contrary to some peoples beliefs. Some guys end up being misses and some guys end up being better than their rankings. Most of college football is made up of 2 and 3 star recruits. The top teams however are full of of 3-5 star recruits and more 4-5 star than 3. And based on history of this program, the 4 stars that have come in have almost all been over ranked. Jake Campos, Breece Hall, and Allen Lazard might be the only ones who actually lived up to their star ranking. Sedrick Johnson, Hunter Deyo, J.J. Bass, Joe Scates, Greg Gaines, and Hunter Dekkers were all overrated.
This^^
I always like to see who they are recruiting against. Don’t want to knock the class or pass judgement before they even get on campus but we weren’t exactly out recruting our peers.
This staff has proven to be able to identify talent and develop it but it seems like an uphill battle if that’s the recruiting strategy every single year.
The talk of the day last year was "This class is JJ and a bunch of bums."
Turns out that 2023 may be our best class ever; studs everywhere. I don't think that 2024 has as much talent as 2023, but it definitely is one of Campbell's best classes.
Turns out that 2023 may be our best class ever; studs everywhere. I don't think that 2024 has as much talent as 2023, but it definitely is one of Campbell's best classes.
It's very hard to break into that elite recruiting category. That's why pretty much the same teams end up competing for NC's with the exception of TCU and we all saw how that game went. I think the best thing to do is keep bringing in players with upside and developing them while slowly recruiting better athletes.
I absolutely agree when it comes to success and playing lots of freshmen this year!
I think it may be best to truly judge a class based upon a team's success over 4 years.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
I think this is probably the model for recruiting going forward. We don't have the NIL money to fight in that category, so identify and develop, and keep the program and culture stable and strong.
Fiendishly good class!! Don't you think, @isufbcurt?
Last edited:
