Athlon 2024 Iowa State Preview

Clonefan94

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
11,203
6,254
113
Schaumburg, IL
Big 12 covers suck!

Meh, no Utah, so at least we got that.
 

NorthCyd

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 22, 2011
21,218
35,908
113
No they aren't, but I'm not sure I disagree with any of them.
I don't really agree with the talent and transfer take, but whatever. I guess if you aren't landing the darlings of the transfer/NIL market every year and bragging on twitter about the big NIL deals your players are getting you've got no talent now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aclone

Cyclonsin

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 4, 2020
2,388
4,943
113
36
Savannah, GA
I don't really agree with the talent and transfer take, but whatever. I guess if you aren't landing the darlings of the transfer/NIL market every year and bragging on twitter about the big NIL deals your players are getting you've got no talent now.
The transfer take is the one thing I generally didn't agree with, I'll grant you. I thought we did well in the portal for our needs. But, for talent as a whole, virtually every recruiting service has our last few classes in the bottom half of the league, and our average player ranking for 2025 leaves a lot to be desired.

I understand those aren't the end all be all, but team recruiting rankings do tend to correlate very highly with team success. And I don't think it's unfair to say that talent level we can bring to Ames is what ultimately holds us back from a higher tier.
 
Last edited:

Aclone

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2007
26,928
23,503
113
Des Moines, Ia.
I understand those aren't the end all be all, but team recruiting rankings do tend to correlate very highly with team success.
I keep seeing this statement repeated by multiple people as though it’s the absolute, end all, gospel truth.

The problem is, it’s a really superficial take.

Okay, sure, the schools like Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia have lots of success.

And why does that correlate with recruiting rankings? Because so very many of the highly ranked players flock there. They scoop the cream off the top. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Five stars are redundant.

Just for one example, when Kadyn Proctor, the #1 OT in the Class of ‘23 started at LT at Alabama, it was ahead of the #1 OT in the Class of ‘22.

Here’s another example of how recruiting rankings are flawed. Below are the Rivals and 247 rankings for our two ‘24 WR signees, Brett Eskildsen and Dominic Overby. As you can see, both had relatively indifferent recruiting rankings.

Both have good receiving highlights and good size—they aren’t 5’7” smurfs.

More importantly, ISU has had two speed freaks in recent years, in Kene Nwangwu and Darien Porter.

Overby not only equaled Kene’s 10.54 100m time, he shattered all of Darien’s best numbers—including his state record 400m.

And Eskildsen? Well, he merely ran a 10.52 100m, to even top Jene and Overby.

By any other standards, these guys would both be four star recruits—Overby a high four star.

But no. And they’re hardly the only members of this class like that. The two corners would be next on my list—but again, not the only ones. Not hardly.

This staff rarely competes for the “highly ranked” players. They identify their own. Thus, the “correlation” model rarely applies.

Aside from when the recruiting services eventually decide to agree with them.




 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: quasistellar

ClubCy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 8, 2023
4,349
6,867
113
I keep seeing this statement repeated by multiple people as though it’s the absolute, end all, gospel truth.

The problem is, it’s a really superficial take.

Okay, sure, the schools like Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia have lots of success.

And why does that correlate with recruiting rankings? Because so very many of the highly ranked players flock there. They scoop the cream off the top. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Five stars are redundant.

Just for one example, when Kadyn Proctor, the #1 OT in the Class of ‘23 started at LT at Alabama, it was ahead of the #1 OT in the Class of ‘22.

Here’s another example of how recruiting rankings are flawed. Below are the Rivals and 247 rankings for our two ‘24 WR signees, Brett Eskildsen and Dominic Overby. As you can see, both had relatively indifferent recruiting rankings.

Both have good receiving highlights and good size—they aren’t 5’7” smurfs.

More importantly, ISU has had two speed freaks in recent years, in Kene Nwangwu and Darien Porter.

Overby not only equaled Kene’s 10.54 100m time, he shattered all of Darien’s best numbers—including his state record 400m.

And Eskildsen? Well, he merely ran a 10.52 100m, to even top Jene and Overby.

By any other standards, these guys would both be four star recruits—Overby a high four star.

But no. And they’re hardly the only members of this class like that. The two corners would be next on my list—but again, not the only ones. Not hardly.

This staff rarely competes for the “highly ranked” players. They identify their own. Thus, the “correlation” model rarely applies.

Aside from when the recruiting services eventually decide to agree with them.




I don’t think it should be taken as absolute gospel but recruiting matters. It always has and always will.

You listed our wr commits track times but why don’t they have more p4 offers?