Maybe he slept on it to decide if he wants to do the hard things?
J.T. Rock has entered the Transfer Portal
- Thread starter LLCoolCY
- Start date
Every Big 12 school gets a Valley school as it's farm team. We'll call it the V-League.
It's pretty amazing how much roster building has changed since JT first committed to ISU. I feel bad for him, because I know he wanted to be a factor here. But I also feel bad for ISU having to swim through a system where they have to say goodbye to a 7+ foot developmental player before he even gets a shot at contributing, as well as a 6'11" Big 12 player in Dishon who contributed 8 and 5. There are only a handful of those guys available every year, and the ones with impact are very hard to get with NIL. I understand funds are limited and that will always be something ISU is up against. But man, those have to be tough calls. We have no 5's currently and really need three. Hopefully, TJ and staff know how things are going to shake out according to there vision for next year .
I’ll take 6’8 that can guard multiple positions everyday of the week before I take 6’11, 7’0 guys that can’t
As long as we’re not the farm team for the P2 and rich basketball-only, it’ll be okay
I don’t think it’s a good thing for ISU. Anything that basically extends roster size and salary costs pushes us further to midmajor level
Right now freshmen are declining in price. It’s a market inefficiency we can exploit. If the Kansas or Tech’s (with their billionaire donor) could buy freshmen and stash, that angle is diminished
They are mostly likely right on the outcome, just wrong on the timing.
I agree that with ample funds we’d likely want to keep Jackson, although I think from a basketball perspective we’d still try to get a different type center in front of him
I feel like we’re back to the roots of the economics of small ball, and why a nba guy like Hoiberg, where salary cap has shaped viewpoints
The Jackson type center is safe. There are decades of basketball that suggest it will lead to that center type has a good floor.
But 8 and 5 is very replaceable…IF you give up the occasional need for 6’11” 265, to get more switching ability, more rim running, more offense etc
If there are roster constraints, you don’t need 3 centers. Guys that only play one position are inherently less valuable per dollar spent
And they certainly don’t need to be 6’11”
It's a tricky equation. Yes, freshman can come in with a lower cost to the program, but Iowa State still needs to develop them. Just from a physical standpoint, the number of 1st year players built to handle 15-20 mpg in the Big 12 is a pretty small pool of guys. You can hit the lottery on one here and there, but the hit rate will generally be pretty low, especially if you plan on cutting them loose in the spring for a new crop every fall if they couldn't get on the court at 18 years old. If we can't pay to put the guys in the program that it needs, we have to develop them. That takes time, and if you need a deep bench of players physically and mentally ready, there can't be guys sitting down there who won't contribute for another two years. I'm not envious of TJ having to find that balance. Maybe going to 15 scholarships will become more necessary than we originally thought.
IMO / he was never a fit for our defensive scheme , where we trap and switch everything on the perimeter. I think he can have a good career at a school that plays a more traditional defense. Should be lots of options for him. I wish him well. Pp
It’s difficult to execute, right?
But also straightforward in concept.
I feel like TJ was ahead of the curve, albeit I think more small ball maximizes his roster more
Presumably he’s using most of our salary to get 5 or 6 guys with high certainty. Investing in getting a tenable starting point, our floor outcome
We’ll lack the budget (and available usage) for that group to have the high ceiling we want, so we bring in a lot of freshmen with wide range of outcomes
If freshmen are a 1/5 hit rate, we need to bring in at least 5. Ideally we have a staff that can go 3/5 on average. IMO more investment/development minutes would help the hit rate, and doesn’t need to compromise our culture or metrics
We have x amount to spend on players to get an acceptable accumulative expected value, while trying to keep minimum possible outcome high
Last edited:
Something I've yet to read about: the importance of a quality practice squad. Covering a rotational squad with NIL will likely, hamper funds for a quality practice squad. Under the radar incoming frosh may have more value on the practice squad. Rock not so much, but Watson's athleticism had to have helped.
Get what your saying. But it's awful nice to have a shot-blocking post that impacts high % of shots in the paint.
I'll be greedy and take both:
- A 6'10+ shot blocking post
- A stable of 6'6" - 6'8" players who can play the 3/4 spots and guard smaller players. I'd be happy to switch 1-4 and have my post hedge on ball screens vs. switch.
I don’t know, veterans of quality college coaching tend to know how to practice better
A big part of the struggle getting freshmen to succeed/get on the court, is getting them treat practice more like they do games
A senior like Mulder from Purdue Fort Wayne is going to be a better practice player than most freshmen we want to bring in (high upside) imo, at likely less cost since he has little upside
Why? If we’re only playing 8-9 guys and there are two walk-ons, that leaves 3-5 spots still available
Agree with all of this especially the bolded. I think we need to prioritize retaining some of these freshmen and sophomores longer, even if they haven’t shown they are B12 players yet. Understanding you won’t be able to convince (or want) all of them to stay. But we need to be better than 1 for 7 of the last two recruiting classes making it to their sophomore eligibility year.
Having to play Kelderman important minutes in a Tourney game is a failure imo,
I tend to agree but to get to that next step you almost need a tall guy. Going back to 2019, every final 2 team had at least one starter 6'10" or taller except '23 UConn and '19 Virginia. They both had a 6'9" starter and UConn had Klingen coming off the bench.
Of course, the tall guy has to be a pretty good basketball player.
Damn near every top 100 guy is a 4 star. It doesn’t really mean anything in basketball unless you’re a top 40-50 guy.
At the same time if you have diversity at the position with a 6-10 or 6-11 banger and a 6-10 rim runner and a quick as lightning 6-9 guy who is pretty slim it helps with both depth and having better matchups against a diversity of opponents. I think having three guys at that position this year was about right. ISU was lucky in that neither Dishon or Brandt missed significant time due to injury. I wouldn't want to have to play significant portions of a significant number of games with Jefferson banging against some of the bigger more physical centers in an NCAA schedule.
In addition situationally you could play two of them together if at least one of them is even a minor threat from 3. Most people don't realize that Chatfield can hit the three (22 of 56 for .393 his third year). I think TJ thought he was too valuable on the offensive boards to have him that far away from the rim when a bunch of the low percentage shots go up. If he was playing at the 4 with another 5 he could shoot from 3 to unclog the lane.