My thoughts are this:
Prohm actually recruited too well in spots. The key to modern CBB is to recruit really well, but not too well. THT, Wigginton, Haliburton played a combined 5/12 seasons. He just able to replace them fast enough and that is where we are at now. Fred recruited really well, but Niang, Morris, Naz and other stayed all 4 years. It’s also fair to note that Fred’s transfers were significantly better. Bottom line, if those 3 Prohm recruits stay 4 years (like Garza did), this message board thread never exists.
........
I agree that a program like ISU needs to have All Big 12 type players who stick around 4 years. I would feel different if the state of Iowa produced around 6 top level P5 recruits each year. But typically there are only 1 or 2 and ISU has tended not to sign many in-state kids. They go to Iowa or out-of-state.
A school like ISU has to be careful in the recruiting process in going after kids who have it in their mind they are only going to play 1 or 2 years of college ball. I don't think this was the case with Haliburton, but I feel Horton-Tucker, Wigginton and Foster came to ISU with the idea of being at ISU one or two years and entering the draft. A lot of times they jump before being ready and the best a school gets is a mediocre player.
Kids like Thomas, Niang, Morris and Garza were driven to be NBA players- but their timeline was development driven vs. getting to the NBA within a certain timeline.
For kids who are timeline driven, from day 1 they want to be the man on offense so they can get noticed by NBA scouts. For a school like ISU that is dangerous because to make a one year player a team's focal point, it doesn't create continuity for the next year.
It's easier for Kentucky and Duke to recruit one & done players because they reload McDonald AA's each year. Since they recruit at such a high level in quality AND quantity- they can hold playing time as the carrot. I don't think a coach like Steve Prohm can do the same because he doesn't have the quantity of elite players.