Can we finally put the Zalesky on par with Brands debate to rest?

[MSU158]

Zalesky was trending toward the middle of the B1G when he was ousted. Brands has now won 2 B1G's in a row and another DI Championship. On top of that, they are poised for 3 in a row and 2 in a row, respectively.

To bring in Sesame Street, 1 of these is not like the other...............

 

[1stplacehawk]

Reasonable people put this to rest a while ago.

 

[dtripp26]

Love Jimmy Z, one of the most dominant Hawks ever on the mat.

However, not all great wrestlers are great coache. He struggled to coach up the guys he brought in.

 

[lookleft goright]

It will be put to rest until the Hawks lose another dual meet or finish 2nd at the Bigs or 2nd at the NCAAs.

 

[FrontHeadlock2]

Love Jimmy Z, one of the most dominant Hawks ever on the mat.

However, not all great wrestlers are great coache. He struggled to coach up the guys he brought in.

My memory is a bit hazy, but I think it was a combination of not only failing to coach guys up, but also having top level recruits under-perform -- guys like Mike Zadick, Jessman Smith, Luke Eustice, Alex Tsirtsis, Matt Fields, etc.

Mocco leaving was kinda the nail in the coffin. They drastically underpeformed once he left. Even the year they took 2nd, 2004, was more a matter of circumstance than anything as they only had 82 points.

Personally with a program like Iowa, I think you always want to see them score 100+ points at NCAAs. You may lose some years when other teams perform really well, but if you cross the 100 point threshold you put yourself in position to win and you will certainly be on the podium. Once the last of the Gable recruits left in 2001 Zalesky's point totals at NCAAs were:

• 2002 -- 89 points (4th)
• 2003 -- 57.5 points (8th)
• 2004 -- 82 points (2nd)
• 2005 -- 66 points (7th)
• 2006 -- 70 points (4th)
• 2007 -- 57 points (8th) [yes this was Brands, but it was Zalesky's guys]

Even in 2004 they weren't really close to sniffing 100 points, and Fulsaas was the only wrestler to overperform. Paul Bradly took 4th place, but he got a lucky draw and all his wins were unseeded guys.

 

[Kinnick.At.Night]

Zalesky was to Iowa wrestling what Frank Solich was to Nebraska football. It’s extremely difficult to follow a legend. And when the legend’s momentum dwindles, everyone sees the replacement for what they are.

 

[FrontHeadlock2]

Zalesky was to Iowa wrestling what Frank Solich was to Nebraska football. It’s extremely difficult to follow a legend. And when the legend’s momentum dwindles, everyone sees the replacement for what they are.

Perhaps, but football wasn't as top-heavy as wrestling.

Zalesky had 4 championship caliber teams after Gable left from 98-01; he just simply wasn't able to get the recruits he needed to continue. Anyone remember why his recruiting dropped off so considerably? Was he just not good at it?

 

[SPOONER]

Who the hell was still debating this?

 

[Rustys Dad]

I didn’t know this was still a debate?

 

[24 so far]

Zalesky was trending toward the middle of the B1G when he was ousted. Brands has now won 2 B1G's in a row and another DI Championship. On top of that, they are poised for 3 in a row and 2 in a row, respectively.

To bring in Sesame Street, 1 of these is not like the other...............

There is a debate about this somewhere? That's news to me.

 

[jrod65]

Anyone remember why his recruiting dropped off so considerably? Was he just not good at it?

I can only speak for one individual recruit/instance, but Zalesky wasn't doing the recruiting of him. It was Tom Brands that made the trips to have the face to face discussions.

Obviously, I don't know the coaches side of it(perhaps Zalesky was spearheading the recruiting process). Just saying that it was Brands that he was talking to during the recruitment.

 

[Fluffles]

Obviously, Zalesky wasn’t as good as Brands, but he isn’t a bad coach—he did a decent job at Oregon State considering the caliber of recruits he had to work with. Was definitely a poor recruiter, however.

 

[MSU158]

Who the hell was still debating this?

The year before Covid it had quite a bit of traction. Obviously, many of those proponents went silent last year, but Covid didn't let Iowa win it. This year it happened, so I wanted to see if those arguing for Zalesky would respond. However, it seems they will all remain silent or act like they didn't argue it before.

I don't feel like sifting to find those topics. If anyone else has the time and interest, please do!

 

[MVPFAN]

Who the hell was still debating this?

Trolls I guess.

 

[thom67]

Perhaps, but football wasn't as top-heavy as wrestling.

Zalesky had 4 championship caliber teams after Gable left from 98-01; he just simply wasn't able to get the recruits he needed to continue. Anyone remember why his recruiting dropped off so considerably? Was he just not good at it?

One of his biggest problems with recruiting was the loss of scholies due to Gable having used to much scholarships money while still Coaching. Jimmy got penalized because of this with loss of scholarships for couple year.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Perhaps, but football wasn't as top-heavy as wrestling.

Zalesky had 4 championship caliber teams after Gable left from 98-01; he just simply wasn't able to get the recruits he needed to continue. Anyone remember why his recruiting dropped off so considerably? Was he just not good at it?

Didn't he kind downplay the Hawkeye Wrestling Club?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

One of his biggest problems with recruiting was the loss of scholies due to Gable having used to much scholarships money while still Coaching. Jimmy got penalized because of this with loss of scholarships for couple year.

That was the interpretation of rules regarding instate and out of state tuition, wasn't it?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

The year before Covid it had quite a bit of traction. Obviously, many of those proponents went silent last year, but Covid didn't let Iowa win it. This year it happened, so I wanted to see if those arguing for Zalesky would respond. However, it seems they will all remain silent or act like they didn't argue it before.

I don't feel like sifting to find those topics. If anyone else has the time and interest, please do!

I argued for Zalesky a lot until the 6th place finish at the Big tens. Then I changed my mind.

 

[wasdt21]

Zalesky great Hawkeye no reason to discredit him in any way.I like the guy currently in charge.

 

[TarpHawk]

Iowa's only real issue over the past 10 years has been recruiting. Recruiting has improved. Tom deserves credit for learning and making course corrections; not everyone can do that, and Tom is a pretty stubborn cat.

Here's the tale of the tape:

Coach: Gable
NCAA tourneys: 22
NCAA pt avg: 120.9
NCAA place avg: 1.6
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 77.3%

Coach: Zalesky
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 91.3
NCAA place avg: 3.3
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 44.4%

Coach: Brands
NCAA tourneys: 14
NCAA pt avg: 93.9
NCAA place avg: 3.1
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 28.6%

Coach: Brands (MINUS FIRST SEASON)
NCAA tourneys: 13
NCAA pt avg: 96.8
NCAA place avg: 2.8
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 30.8%

Coach: Brands (FIRST 9 SEASONS ONLY)
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 92.8
NCAA place avg: 3.0
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 33.3%

Coach: Brands (SEASONS 2-10 ONLY):
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 95.4
NCAA place avg: 2.7
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 33.3%

The last 3 are included for different comparisons to Zalesky--some will say Tom's first year shouldn't count, for example, which is a valid argument. One could also say Zalesky's first year shouldn't count. Or that 2020 should somehow be included in Tom's numbers. Or any number of scenarios. You're welcome to run them, but don't form your argument first and then cherry-pick the data simply to support it.

Zalesky was fired after 5 consecutive sub-100-pt seasons. Tom had 7 consecutive sub-100-pt seasons, ending this year. The difference, in large part, is the positive momentum created by Spencer Lee's arrival. It's not dissimilar to the impact of Tom & Terry's arrival on Gable's momentum in 1988.

I'm not dissing Brands--I'm defending Zalesky. He was a good coach but not a great recruiter. Could he have learned from his mistakes and turned it around like Tom did? Who knows? It doesn't matter now.

The most important #s right now are 129 & 1, which are the points scored and place in the most recent season. Tom brought Iowa back to the top, and he deserves all the kudos due to him.

But stop kicking Zalesky. A story can have a hero without having a bad guy.

 

[FrontHeadlock2]

Iowa's only real issue over the past 10 years has been recruiting. Recruiting has improved. Tom deserves credit for learning and making course corrections; not everyone can do that, and Tom is a pretty stubborn cat.

Here's the tale of the tape:

Coach: Gable
NCAA tourneys: 22
NCAA pt avg: 120.9
NCAA place avg: 1.6
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 77.3%

Coach: Zalesky
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 91.3
NCAA place avg: 3.3
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 44.4%

Coach: Brands
NCAA tourneys: 14
NCAA pt avg: 93.9
NCAA place avg: 3.1
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 28.6%

Coach: Brands (MINUS FIRST SEASON)
NCAA tourneys: 13
NCAA pt avg: 96.8
NCAA place avg: 2.8
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 30.8%

Coach: Brands (FIRST 9 SEASONS ONLY)
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 92.8
NCAA place avg: 3.0
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 33.3%

Coach: Brands (SEASONS 2-10 ONLY):
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 95.4
NCAA place avg: 2.7
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 33.3%

The last 3 are included for different comparisons to Zalesky--some will say Tom's first year shouldn't count, for example, which is a valid argument. One could also say Zalesky's first year shouldn't count. Or that 2020 should somehow be included in Tom's numbers. Or any number of scenarios. You're welcome to run them, but don't form your argument first and then cherry-pick the data simply to support it.

Zalesky was fired after 5 consecutive sub-100-pt seasons. Tom had 7 consecutive sub-100-pt seasons, ending this year. The difference, in large part, is the positive momentum created by Spencer Lee's arrival. It's not dissimilar to the impact of Tom & Terry's arrival on Gable's momentum in 1988.

I'm not dissing Brands--I'm defending Zalesky. He was a good coach but not a great recruiter. Could he have learned from his mistakes and turned it around like Tom did? Who knows? It doesn't matter now.

The most important #s right now are 129 & 1, which are the points scored and place in the most recent season. Tom brought Iowa back to the top, and he deserves all the kudos due to him.

But stop kicking Zalesky. A story can have a hero without having a bad guy.

Nice write up.

Agree that the 100-point threshold is significant.

I think Zalesky's issue was twofold. First, his last 4 years he only exceeded 70 points once, and that was in 2004 thanks to a flukey Fulsaas run with a couple 1-point wins that I don't think would generally be repeated. And had Jim stayed in 2007, I don't think he would have done any better than Brands did, which was 57 points. Brands, OTOH, didn't have a single year below 70 points (other than his first which was a Zalesky holdover). And most of those years he was at least in sniffing range of 100 in that one more solid AA would have gotten him there.

Second, and I think what really did him in, was his results at the Big 10 tournaments. the back-to-back 4th and 6th place finishes in 2005 and 2006 with zero individual champions really gave the program and the fans a lot of consternation. You also have to couple that with the fact that the general tone of the team was different. There was a lot less scoring -- you had guys who didn't light it up like Bradley, the Eustices, etc. Plus the one guy at that point who was really good, Perry, wrestled more of an Ok St style. The Iowa faithful felt like he had totally lost control of the team, the success, and the style within a 5-year period from 2001 to 2006. They panicked.

 

[UndercoverHawk]

Is Mark Perry a national champ in 2007 if Zalesky was still around?

 

[MSU158]

No one is better mentally equipped to deal with pressure than Kem. The word doesn’t even exist to him. Nothing will change with his approach, training, or confidence.

Iowa's only real issue over the past 10 years has been recruiting. Recruiting has improved. Tom deserves credit for learning and making course corrections; not everyone can do that, and Tom is a pretty stubborn cat.

Here's the tale of the tape:

Coach: Gable
NCAA tourneys: 22
NCAA pt avg: 120.9
NCAA place avg: 1.6
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 77.3%

Coach: Zalesky
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 91.3
NCAA place avg: 3.3
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 44.4%

Coach: Brands
NCAA tourneys: 14
NCAA pt avg: 93.9
NCAA place avg: 3.1
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 28.6%

Coach: Brands (MINUS FIRST SEASON)
NCAA tourneys: 13
NCAA pt avg: 96.8
NCAA place avg: 2.8
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 30.8%

Coach: Brands (FIRST 9 SEASONS ONLY)
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 92.8
NCAA place avg: 3.0
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 33.3%

Coach: Brands (SEASONS 2-10 ONLY):
NCAA tourneys: 9
NCAA pt avg: 95.4
NCAA place avg: 2.7
% NCAAs > 100 pts: 33.3%

The last 3 are included for different comparisons to Zalesky--some will say Tom's first year shouldn't count, for example, which is a valid argument. One could also say Zalesky's first year shouldn't count. Or that 2020 should somehow be included in Tom's numbers. Or any number of scenarios. You're welcome to run them, but don't form your argument first and then cherry-pick the data simply to support it.

Zalesky was fired after 5 consecutive sub-100-pt seasons. Tom had 7 consecutive sub-100-pt seasons, ending this year. The difference, in large part, is the positive momentum created by Spencer Lee's arrival. It's not dissimilar to the impact of Tom & Terry's arrival on Gable's momentum in 1988.

I'm not dissing Brands--I'm defending Zalesky. He was a good coach but not a great recruiter. Could he have learned from his mistakes and turned it around like Tom did? Who knows? It doesn't matter now.

The most important #s right now are 129 & 1, which are the points scored and place in the most recent season. Tom brought Iowa back to the top, and he deserves all the kudos due to him.

But stop kicking Zalesky. A story can have a hero without having a bad guy.

I definitely did not mean to kick Zalesky so much as put Brands where I believe he should be. He has had to deal with Sanderson in his prime at a juggernaut university with immeasurable resources. On top of th tOSU went crazy recruiting and had its own backyard send them the best deeply talented group Ohio has had in a long time.

Meanwhile Zalesky started with a squad that every other team was afraid of. The Iowa mystique was still so strong, they won a ton of matches before they even took the mat. Recruits were ripe for the picking as well.

By the time Brands took over, Iowa had lost a ton of that mystique and was losing to MSU, which was far from its best mid 90’s version. Iowa had to have Brands back to get them back on top.

With that said, I think Zalesky was a solid coach at the other OSU with considerably less resources at hand. There was just too much pressure at Iowa, immediately following Gable.

 

[FrontHeadlock2]

Meanwhile Zalesky started with a squad that every other team was afraid of. The Iowa mystique was still so strong, they won a ton of matches before they even took the mat. Recruits were ripe for the picking as well.

By the time Brands took over, Iowa had lost a ton of that mystique and was losing to MSU, which was far from its best mid 90’s version. Iowa had to have Brands back to get them back on top.

I'm trying to think back of all the little things that added up and really hurt Zalesky post-2001.

• Mike Zadick's 7th placer in 2002 stung. On a quick count, if Zadick wins the title Iowa takes 2nd place with somewhere around 105 points.
• In 2003, Jessman Smith probably should have won the title.
• Mocco transferring was a nightmare. They lost out on at least 1 individual title during that period.
• Tsirtsis getting a full scholly and only managing one 7th place finish in 4 years really hurt recruiting. Same with Fields only managing a 1x AA.
• Luke Eustice came in 2nd in 2002 and then was never an AA again.
• It felt like Iowa also really lacked in bonus points during that period.

 

[SPOONER]

I think Zalesky's issue was twofold. First, his last 4 years he only exceeded 70 points once, and that was in 2004 thanks to a flukey Fulsaas run with a couple 1-point wins that I don't think would generally be repeated. And had Jim stayed in 2007, I don't think he would have done any better than Brands did, which was 57 points. Brands, OTOH, didn't have a single year below 70 points (other than his first which was a Zalesky holdover). And most of those years he was at least in sniffing range of 100 in that one more solid AA would have gotten him there.

Stats are a funny thing. Tarp didn’t post anything incorrect. But the above paints a more accurate picture than Tarp’s numbers. 70 or less points 3/4 years? That’s the definition of a fallen program.

 

[FrontHeadlock2]

Stats are a funny thing. Tarp didn’t post anything incorrect. But the above paints a more accurate picture than Tarp’s numbers. 70 or less points 3/4 years? That’s the definition of a fallen program.

Jim had a lot of carryover his first 3-4 years netting 115, 100.5, 116 and 125.5 points. But most of that was Gable recruiting, or guys that would have come anyway in TJ Williams and Mike Zadick. I do give Z credit for getting Strittmatter.

But after that it was really a nose-dive. Certainly there were some unfortunate events with Mocco transferring, a few recruits not panning out, and some devastating losses.

 

[Mountain Man Hawk]

Surprised nobody mentioned all of the Iowa recruits who went to Virginia Tech to be with Brands. I remember that being a big part of the reason everyone was convinced we needed to make a change.

 

[24 so far]

Surprised nobody mentioned all of the Iowa recruits who went to Virginia Tech to be with Brands. I remember that being a big part of the reason everyone was convinced we needed to make a change.

That really didn't make much of a difference to me at the time. What was clear was the Iowa Wrestling product was stale and the wrestling reflected that big time. The Iowa Style was gone and guys didn't get better for the most part IMO. It was clear they were headed in the wrong direction, and all you had to do was watch every week to see it.

 

[uncle jim 62]

watching the ncaa finals makes me me think we are still not heading the right direction.

 

[Kwoodhawk]

watching the ncaa finals makes me me think we are still not heading the right direction.

You have had some strange posts in several threads recently. Drugs or alcohol? Maybe try and make some posts that have some recognizable similarities to readable English.