Luke Anderson and Marcedus Leech have entered the transfer portal

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

isubb79

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2009
268
312
63
Something I haven't seen mentioned that was a Kool-Aid drinker excuse a couple of years ago when we finished last was that we were bad because we didn't have enough players for practice. Is that where we will be headed if the team struggles, not enough D1 players for practice? Last time it was "Fred's fault".
I don't see how having 2 Freshman players out of a 4 player class quit the team before the first game can be spun to be considered a good thing. We can try to find the positives but it is not a good thing.
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,500
19,292
113
Just getting home from work and seeing this, and I can't honestly believe there is anyone on here that thinks this is a bad thing. This is great news.

Like it or not, recruiting has become a cut throat world out there on both sides.... from the players and from the schools. Look how many times players are making commitments to schools, only to decommit (sometimes at the last minute, even after signing the lol) and enrolling at a different school.... which completely leaves the coach hanging out to dry.

Well, the coaches are now returning the favor somewhat in recruiting over some of these players if they think there's not much chance of them ever contributing meaningful minutes in their 4 years at the school. They don't necessarily kick them off the team, they just ask them to RS, or just plain tell them it would be in their best interest to play somewhere else if they ever want to see the floor. In a sense, you can look at that as doing the player a big favor.... why waste 4 years sitting on the bench at ISU if you can contribute elsewhere.

Leech was always going to be a HUGE reach IMO. It's a situation where you bring him in and hopefully he gets healthy and can get stronger, and you think he can become the 5 star player he once was. Luke was likely always going to be a role player at best here IMO, but I'd bet the staff found out he was kinda soft and would only ever be a potential 3 pt threat, but otherwise a liability on defense, etc. Or who knows... maybe he just didn't like the weather or just didn't fit in with the team, etc.

IMO.... this is only a positive thing. If CyTwins is correct and we land Foster, and possibly Dubar... it would be a HUGE upgrade. Why wouldn't any Cyclone fan be in favor of that?

It’s a bad thing that our coaches evaluated poorly and signed two non contributors and missed the opportunity to improve the program with those two scholarship spots. There is nothing good about wasting 2/3 of your fall signees because of failures in player evaluation.

But it’s a good thing that they are moving on quickly and opening up those spots.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,548
25,681
113
It’s a bad thing that our coaches evaluated poorly and signed two non contributors and missed the opportunity to improve the program with those two scholarship spots. There is nothing good about wasting 2/3 of your fall signees because of failures in player evaluation.

But it’s a good thing that they are moving on quickly and opening up those spots.

Do you really think all head coaches hit on every recruit every year?

Also, do you believe this staff is bad at recruiting, because that's the furthest thing from the truth. I trust Prohm's recruiting ability FAR more than I trust his X's and O's, that's for sure. He's brought in some really good talent in his years here.

And supposedly this was "player driven" too it sounds like. So they may have seen the writing on the wall, or didn't feel like they fit in with the team, or just didn't like Ames, the weather, who in the world knows?? How can that be Prohm's fault if that's the case?

Leech and Luke were never going to give us hardly any minutes this year.... so what's the downside to them transferring and Prohm replacing with two better players?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: deadeyededric

CyCloned

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,534
6,883
113
Robins, Iowa
Still wondering if Leech was having some kind of issues, since he didn't play Italy. Seems like a guy that could score points, but there was something going on.
 

CloneGuy8

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2017
11,856
23,215
113
38
The anti-Prohm people on here are salivating at this news and it's honestly disappointing. Most would rather see Prohm fail just so they could tell everyone "I told you so".
Live look at them
QPwvzp8.gif
 

CaptainClutch

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 1, 2014
180
496
63
Does Michigan St not count as a school of UVa’s prestige?
You’re right forgot about those two transfers. Little bit different though when those two got kicked off of the team. And they had no where near the year Shayok did.
 

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
9,357
9,145
113
39
You’re right forgot about those two transfers. Little bit different though when those two got kicked off of the team. And they had no where near the year Shayok did.
What’s different? In terms of recruits they were basically the same type of gets. Talented, but not necessarily premium transfers.

Shayok had a great year.
 

CloneGuy8

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2017
11,856
23,215
113
38
So many people reading into XF or Dubar. These two would be leaving ISU regardless of landing any new recruits. Leech and Anderson leaving are completely separate from Foster and Dubar.
You still feeling good about Foster to ISU?
 

acody

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2006
1,180
131
63
69
Do you really think all head coaches hit on every recruit every year?

Also, do you believe this staff is bad at recruiting, because that's the furthest thing from the truth. I trust Prohm's recruiting ability FAR more than I trust his X's and O's, that's for sure. He's brought in some really good talent in his years here.

And supposedly this was "player driven" too it sounds like. So they may have seen the writing on the wall, or didn't feel like they fit in with the team, or just didn't like Ames, the weather, who in the world knows?? How can that be Prohm's fault if that's the case?

Leech and Luke were never going to give us hardly any minutes this year.... so what's the downside to them transferring and Prohm replacing with two better players?

How could they not like Ames. We have Reiman Gardens and Hickory Park.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: clonedude

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,548
25,681
113
No - you just made that up. Do you really think starting your post with a total straw man argument is a reasonable or intelligent way to discuss recruiting with fellow cyclones?

Okay, so if coaches don't always hit on every recruit, should they just let them ride the pine for 4 years, or would it be in the players' best interest if the head coach told them upfront that he wasn't sure there would be much playing time for them here, and it might be in their best interest to look at other options if that is what they wanted?
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,500
19,292
113
And supposedly this was "player driven" too it sounds like. So they may have seen the writing on the wall, or didn't feel like they fit in with the team, or just didn't like Ames, the weather, who in the world knows?? How can that be Prohm's fault if that's the case?

Leech and Luke were never going to give us hardly any minutes this year.... so what's the downside to them transferring ?

Paragraph A- because that is a very important part of the evaluation process in college recruiting.

Paragraph B - the problem isn’t that they transferred because they were t good enough to play here. That’s better than them taking up a spot. The problem is that we used 2/3 of our fall signees on players that couldn’t cut it here.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: isutrevman

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,500
19,292
113
Okay, so if coaches don't always hit on every recruit, should they just let them ride the pine for 4 years, or would it be in the players' best interest if the head coach told them upfront that he wasn't sure there would be much playing time for them here, and it might be in their best interest to look at other options if that is what they wanted?

You should go back and actually read my post you responded to. I specifically stated that was a good thing. Read it.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: isutrevman

IAStubborn

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,380
623
113
I recall zero issues with Edozie's attitude. I agree on their contribution being comparable if not leaning in Booker's favor.
I don’t disagree. He played more and had some big games. I just don’t think that was ever an expectation of edozie. His job was to come in and play some great defense get some rebounds when we needed a physical body and he did that and helped us win a pretty clutch way in a crucial big 12 tournament game iirc. I dont think booker was a miss either, I guess I was more saying a miss relative to edozie in expectations vs. productivity. Booker had a higher ceiling. Hard to call a project that contributes a miss. Ok so take him off hoiberg had a couple transfer misses but batted above .500 on transfers. Prohm bats better on HS. All in all we get the same result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,548
25,681
113
Paragraph A- because that is a very important part of the evaluation process in college recruiting.

Paragraph B - the problem isn’t that they transferred because they were t good enough to play here. That’s better than them taking up a spot. The problem is that we used 2/3 of our fall signees on players that couldn’t cut it here.

So you doubt Prohm's ability to recruit? I'm trying to understand what you're saying here?