I looked at the rivals rankings for the past two years (non premium) and Iowa State is now ranked 60th nationally with 20 recruits, compared to 63rd last year with 30 recruits. With a short recruiting season, how can this be?
Rivals: ISU 60th 2007: 63rd 2006..how can this be?
- Thread starter ketelmeister
- Start date
We acctually have the same number of points this year as we did last year, its just that overall it ranks higher this year!
If I read it right, there are three commits who are not yet rated so they are factored in as Zero Stars. Add 3-5 more commits, adjust the star ratings and the class will be more respectable.
I never buy into star ratings and recruiting ranks for our classes. We've uncovered some real gems in the past that were low star ratings and take Arnaud for instance. He was supposedly a 5 star before he signed with ISU then dropped to a 3 star. Had he signed with a big name school he wouldn't have dropped to a 3 star most likely.
It's ISU, it's just assumed if you sign with us you aren't that good and if you sign with someone like Texas then you are good basically. Look at how many guys we have sent to the NFL that I bet you that were a 3 star recruit at best if not lower. Jordan Carstens probably didn't even get a star rating since he was a walk-on and he's been All-Big 12 and a starter in the NFL at times.
It's all about signing guys that you can develop and can play well in your system.
It's ISU, it's just assumed if you sign with us you aren't that good and if you sign with someone like Texas then you are good basically. Look at how many guys we have sent to the NFL that I bet you that were a 3 star recruit at best if not lower. Jordan Carstens probably didn't even get a star rating since he was a walk-on and he's been All-Big 12 and a starter in the NFL at times.
It's all about signing guys that you can develop and can play well in your system.
I don't buy the star conspiracy with us. But what
I DO buy is there is a very postive coorelation between having a highly rated recruiting class and results on the field. Obviously there will be exceptions, but if you look at the consistently higher rated schools, they are consistently at the tops of their conferences and playing for BCS bowls. I don't know what would be worse - having highly rated recruiting classes we can trumpet and winning 1 conference game on a bad call, or having a team full of nobodys and never-will-bes winning 1 conference game on a bad call...
I DO buy is there is a very postive coorelation between having a highly rated recruiting class and results on the field. Obviously there will be exceptions, but if you look at the consistently higher rated schools, they are consistently at the tops of their conferences and playing for BCS bowls. I don't know what would be worse - having highly rated recruiting classes we can trumpet and winning 1 conference game on a bad call, or having a team full of nobodys and never-will-bes winning 1 conference game on a bad call...
Re: I don't buy the star conspiracy with us. But what
Everyone knows that any given player will see some degree of success if he plays at a Texas, USC, or other Powerhouse. Therefore if someone is recruited and signed by such a school, it is safe to put a nice high rating on that particular recruit. However, if someone commits to a school like Iowa State, they know there there will likely be less of a supporting cast, so the safe thing to do is to lower the rating of that player.
Could be wrong here, but that is the way I see it. We will never have highly rated recruiting classes until we have consistant performers on the field.
Everyone knows that any given player will see some degree of success if he plays at a Texas, USC, or other Powerhouse. Therefore if someone is recruited and signed by such a school, it is safe to put a nice high rating on that particular recruit. However, if someone commits to a school like Iowa State, they know there there will likely be less of a supporting cast, so the safe thing to do is to lower the rating of that player.
Could be wrong here, but that is the way I see it. We will never have highly rated recruiting classes until we have consistant performers on the field.
Hopefully GC turns out to be a better coach than Zook at IL.
Look at what Zook is pulling in for that school (and what he pulled in at Florida), yet it's very debatable that he's a good coach of the talent he pulls in. Look what Meyer was able to do with Zook's players.
It's one thing to pull in the high ranking star players, it's another to coach them.
Look at what Zook is pulling in for that school (and what he pulled in at Florida), yet it's very debatable that he's a good coach of the talent he pulls in. Look what Meyer was able to do with Zook's players.
It's one thing to pull in the high ranking star players, it's another to coach them.
Now ISU is #58 in the country with an average of 2.4 if they give Weir a 2 star ranking that will move the average up to 2.5.
At least we are not 12th. I think we were 11th last year too.
Call me crazy but I am expecting to win at least 4 games this year. Anything less than 4 wins will be horrible.
Come on Man, Zook???? You are comparing Chizik to Zook??
I hope you mean strictly recruiting-wise.
Yeah, lets wait to see Chizik coach some games before we compare his coaching abilities to the Zooker.
Wasn't trying to compare coaching styles, just saying that Zook can recruit with the best of them (whether he's doing it legally or not). He cannot coach a team with talent, and he's proven that with Florida, and we'll see what he does with Illinios.
We'll find out what kind of coach GC is. Although to be fair his years 2-3 should be graded. This year has the potential to be tough and it's really not all his doing.
Last edited:
