transfers with one year to play want to win and play in the tournament. If they were good enough to play in the NBA, they would be going to the NBA.
***Official 2019-2020 Transfer Thread***
- Thread starter ruflosn
- Start date
transfers with one year to play want to win and play in the tournament. If they were good enough to play in the NBA, they would be going to the NBA.
I’m guessing the top ones want all three, and we offer it.
We’re a good team if we land two good transfers.
The top ones have already decided and they weren't buying what Prohm was selling.
Exactly! Likely why we’ve been a finalist for several good transfers. Available lead role on a good team isn’t prohibiting.
It’s lazy and a misnomer to allude to we’re having trouble landing guys because of winning potential or role. Have you not paid attention to every spring under Prohm? Outside of Shayok (who is proof that 1 top talent is all that’s needed, and they can find success anywhere) who had limited suitors as a 1-year, our hit rate is low.
The good news is you can miss 100 times, as long as you get what you need. There’s still time.
I think May-August will see more top guys than normal.
Prohm could also wake up, and decide we have a staff opening for a well connected assistant!
Isn't that the exact same thing people say about Prohm? "He's brought is good talent but underachieved with it"
Help me understand how the 2 are different because that is exactly what people say about the 2018-2019 team and Prohm's first 2 teams.
I'm more worried about being able to defend shooters, run offense and maintain and develop the guys that we do get. If any of those weren't a worry, than Spring Transfer market would probably not be as big a concern.
Matt gets the benefit of the doubt for a couple different reasons. He took over a program that needed a full rebuild. We have been to a bowl game in 3 of his first 4 years. This year we can get to a bowl game for the 4th consecutive year in a row...a feat that has never occurred in Iowa State history. We have won 8 games in multiple years under Campbell and gone to higher rated bowl games (Alamo and Camping World) then we ever have before. He has laid a blueprint for this program to be successful with recruiting in the upper midwest and he has yet to show us a "bad bounce year" the example of being 8-4, 7-5, 8-4, 3-9.
Steve doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because he took over a Top 15 program. I think that is conservative as his first team was a Top 5-10 pre-season squad in my eyes but certainly no worse than top 20. We finished 10-8 in the conference after being 12-6 the year before. They were a #4 seed (and a bit of surprise at that spot) in the NCAA Tournament which obviously correlates to a 13-16 ranked team. Lost the first round of the Big 12 in a great game against Oklahoma and then got to the Sweet 16 albeit with an easier round of Iona and UALR. And then the Virginia match-up wasn't very competitive in Chicago....keep in mind Virginia lost the following round to Syracuse. I'm not sure that first year would be underachieving (outside of the conference record which was) but more just not meeting some of the very high pre-season expectations.
Year 2---Nobody should ever believe that this year was anything other than terrific. 12-6 in the conference was the very best that group could have done with the roster limitations. They won the Big 12 tournament and yes the failure to go small against Purdue likely lost them the chance at Kansas in the Sweet 16 but I'm not sure how anyone could call that team underachieving.
Year 3--Rebuild disaster.
Year 4--Overachieving to start the year and Big 12 season. A free-fall getting to 18-5 and 7-3 in the conference. Lost to TCU at home by 9, lost to Baylor at home, beat by TCU away, worked by Texas away by double-digits. The fight the week of West Virginia and the discord in the middle of the game. Played well against Tech, win the Big 12 tournament and then Ohio State game. When you lose 6 of your final 8 regular season games it is going to put a bad "underachieving" taste in everyone's mouth. It's funny but if that squad goes 4-4 in their final 8 rather than 2-6 then you are 22-9 and 11-7 to finish the regular season. A record of 25-10 with Big 12 Tournament and loss to OSU and everyone feels differently.
Year 5--Unmitigated disaster.
I think in closing that Year 1 and Year 4 could be slight underachievement when looked at the season as a whole. There is no way Year 2 is anything other than great. But Year 1 & 4 are likely stained in people's minds because of just how terrible and uncompetitive Year 3 & 5 were.
I was in school during the Johnny Orr years (yes I am that old) and what separated Johnny from the current staff is that Johnny couldn't win on the road as the team didn't defend or rebound that well, but they could, and did, beat anyone at Hilton. While the win/loss record was horrific last year, it was made worse by the embarrassing losses, or even beat-downs, at home to teams that weren't that good. With Johnny, even when the team didn't win on the road, they could get up and feed off the crowd energy and win games they maybe shouldn't have in Hilton. Heck, Danny Manning won a national championship at Kansas but NEVER won a game in Hilton.
Last edited:
If you’re saying we should/could land top GT talent, have a good roster, and yet still struggle, I agree.
9-9 with the roster in 2018-19 is a sobering thought. It would be nice to have a clear over-achieved year!
