But do those title contenders believe the Iowa staff is their best option to maximize their talent? Spencer did - but isn't this the current issue with our recruiting of elite athletes?
Questions for Willie The Brain
- Thread starter Wrestling-04
- Start date
100% agree, but I understand the other perspective. Which is:
You go all in on 2 or 3 guys you might fail in filling the rest with AA's because of neglect. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Then if the shit hits the fan and those 2 or 3 bomb then the bottom really opens up and the program implodes.
Not sure which is truly better, but I know which I'd prefer at this moment.
there are several conversations going on here
1) what constitutes a 'project' / 'diamond in the rough'
2) when / if Iowa ever 'relied' on one to be the starter
3) 'well he was ranked highly but he was the wrong kind of athlete' - which, in other words, is saying a staff recruiting on ranking and not assessment
A diamond in the rough is not someone in the Top 50, that's for damn sure.
The Paul Glynn example is a good one, but rare.
there was a run at 141 with Topher Carton - > Vince Turk --> #44 Max Murin
but that was all b/c #34 Carter Happell (who beat Nick Lee in Trials finals) didn't quite work out.
Topher Carton starting does not indicate that Iowa was 'relying' on him. It indicates that Happel wasn't the guy that thought (or didn't develop, for whatever reason).
anyway, when you end your post with 'we need a top 20 at every weight'
we might as well just shut the conversation down because, 'no sh!t'
i'm not saying that Iowa's recruiting has been stellar. i posted that multiple times here recently.
what i'm saying is that it's patently false that they have 'relied on diamonds in the rough'.
i'm also saying there's value to be had in sub 50 guys, which is easily corroborated by looking at the long list of project/potential type recruits that AA'd.
1) what constitutes a 'project' / 'diamond in the rough'
2) when / if Iowa ever 'relied' on one to be the starter
3) 'well he was ranked highly but he was the wrong kind of athlete' - which, in other words, is saying a staff recruiting on ranking and not assessment
A diamond in the rough is not someone in the Top 50, that's for damn sure.
The Paul Glynn example is a good one, but rare.
there was a run at 141 with Topher Carton - > Vince Turk --> #44 Max Murin
but that was all b/c #34 Carter Happell (who beat Nick Lee in Trials finals) didn't quite work out.
Topher Carton starting does not indicate that Iowa was 'relying' on him. It indicates that Happel wasn't the guy that thought (or didn't develop, for whatever reason).
anyway, when you end your post with 'we need a top 20 at every weight'
we might as well just shut the conversation down because, 'no sh!t'
i'm not saying that Iowa's recruiting has been stellar. i posted that multiple times here recently.
what i'm saying is that it's patently false that they have 'relied on diamonds in the rough'.
i'm also saying there's value to be had in sub 50 guys, which is easily corroborated by looking at the long list of project/potential type recruits that AA'd.
lol. you broke the code. only recruit title contenders.
side note: how do you know they aren't?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
There's no point on fixating on the term "diamond in the rough". The point is that top 50 recruits aren't sufficient to win team titles when you have PSU putting 4 guys in the finals and winning 3+ individual champs each year. The last decade + has proven that you need the top 10-20 recruits to win team titles. Iowa has done relatively well with their "diamond in the rough" Murin types who were maybe ranked between 25-50 as a recruit. That doesn't win you any team titles. You need the top p4p guys who will be 3-4x AAs and NCAA champions. Grouping all guys into one bucket of "top 50 recruits" is pointless since NCAA scoring rewards so many more points for high AAs/champs than a top 50 recruit placing 6th-8th.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Top 5-10 p4p recruits generally deliver. These days, high schoolers are more ready to make the jump directly to D1 than ever and it's more known who the best p4p recruits are. In the 80s-90s, guys who were under credentialed in high school at the national level could win NCAA titles. That rarely happens these days.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Different question for ya Willie:
1) windows or no windows?
2) thoughts on Ben Askren's recent take that spending on a new facility is pointless and won't deliver results and that money would be much better spent on NIL or other things?
1) windows or no windows?
2) thoughts on Ben Askren's recent take that spending on a new facility is pointless and won't deliver results and that money would be much better spent on NIL or other things?
i'm not fixated on the term, frankly, but i do think y'all are marginalizing mid tier prospects and their potential value.
more to the point is that they 'relied on' them. in no universe did Iowa's staff plan/hope for/rely on Paul Glynn, Topher Carton, or Vince Turk as a starter, and classifying Max Murin as a diamond in the rough is silly talk.
more to the point is that they 'relied on' them. in no universe did Iowa's staff plan/hope for/rely on Paul Glynn, Topher Carton, or Vince Turk as a starter, and classifying Max Murin as a diamond in the rough is silly talk.
Every NCAA champ this year was a top tier recruit with the exception of Keck. You can even look at PSUs champs over the years and I don't see many champs who wouldn't be considered a top 15ish recruit. We simply are getting too many top 50 ranked guys and not enough top 10.
The thing that’s being overlooked here is we need more mullets.
Penn State has no windows and they're doing just fine. UNI worked out of a garage last year and had an hodge finalist. Iowa's new facility will be awesome.
he's 100% right that a facility means nothing and that what you do inside it means everything.
he's 100% wrong that spending money on capital improvements is a bad thing.
and his assessment re: Iowa in that regard is also wrong. it's not an either-or proposition. Iowa can build a new $25mil facility and still have every resource (NIL / RTC budgets) it needs.
i don't get the criticism at all. just like i didn't get the Iowa criticism that PSU won b/c of money. Go get the money. That's part of the equation nowadays.
Keckeisen was #14 so i'd classify him as elite or close to it, as well.
my point surely isn't that you shouldn't focus on Top 20's (which, btw, Iowa is 100% doing),
my point is that it's a no brainer so why are we even talking about it?
you go after the best recruits possible - especially if you're of Iowa's prestige. but they aren't getting them.
this has all unraveled after I suggested that Waylon Cressell, Jaxon Penovich and John Murphy would be good Iowa fits. I guess I shouldn't have brought them up lol. i just think they're good fits, probably good value, and have upside for the Hawks.
Why isn’t Iowa getting more top 20 recruits? Have you mentioned your thoughts on this before. I’d be curious to hear them.
Is it as simple as Iowa not producing enough individual national champions, or do you believe it’s more complex?
I'm not Willie, but I think some of it is a perception that has been put out there (rightly or wrongly) in the recruiting world that Iowa is old school and why would you (recruit) want to go backwards from the new school teachings you've been getting at elite clubs. I remember you guys complaining about negative recruiting more than 10 years ago. What has Brands done to counter those whispers?
what is the p4p ranking of the projected line up of the following? I couldn't find all of them. I understand the Caliendo isn't an original Iowa recruit.
Drake 5
Cullen
Ryder 22
Caleb
Caliendo
Kennedy 5
Arnold 7
Ferrari 3
Glazier
Kueter 2
This is so true, need and should get a couple each year!!!
if not, we have bigger problems to solve than recruiting, eh?
Get a couple of hammers each year and let the rest fall into place without much effort by staff.
Btw, anything below top 30 is a project, imo.
Problem is our diamonds stay rough. Last recruits we had that were like this that AAed were Franek and Caliendo, who we didn’t bring in out of high school.
Iowa Top 30's by Year This Decade
2015 - (1) #9-Kemerer
2016 - (2) #3-The Bull, #21-Kaleb Young
2017 - (2) #1-Spencer, #7-Jacob Warner
2018 - (1) #14-Cassioppi
2019 - (1) #29-Abe Assad
2020 - (1) - #4-Patrick Kennedy
2021 - (2) - #4-Drake Ayala, #16-Wyatt Henson
2022 - (0)
2023 - (3) - #6-Kueter, #19-Gabe, #26-Block
2024 - (1) - #7-Angelo Ferrari
Ave: 1.4 per year
2015 - (1) #9-Kemerer
2016 - (2) #3-The Bull, #21-Kaleb Young
2017 - (2) #1-Spencer, #7-Jacob Warner
2018 - (1) #14-Cassioppi
2019 - (1) #29-Abe Assad
2020 - (1) - #4-Patrick Kennedy
2021 - (2) - #4-Drake Ayala, #16-Wyatt Henson
2022 - (0)
2023 - (3) - #6-Kueter, #19-Gabe, #26-Block
2024 - (1) - #7-Angelo Ferrari
Ave: 1.4 per year
penn state was 2.6 fwiw.
five of those 26 are for 2024 (SR's in hs now)
five of those 26 are for 2024 (SR's in hs now)
I have confidence that the staff can pull in top talent if they pursue those athletes. PSU has created a road map for dominating while signing pretty much ONLY top talent. So, it’s not only possible but imperative, imo.
Backing out the 2024 Sr. class and adjusting to 9 years, Iowa is 1.44 and Penn State is 2.33.
NCAA Finalists that were Outside Top 30
2024 - #49-Lucas Davison, #59-Mesenbrink
2023 - HM-Matt Ramos, NR-Tanner Sloan
2022 - NR-Kizhan Clarke, #40-Quincy Monday, #97-Deakin, #46-Myles Amine, #74-Max Dean
2021 - #76-Brandon Courtney, #35-Eierman, HM-Jesse Dellavechia, #40-Jake Wentzel
2020 - Canceled
2019 - NR-Drew Foster, #74-Max Dean, NR-Anthony Cassar
2018 - #35-Stevan Micic, #47-Seth Gross, #92-Bryce Meredith, NR-Ronnie Perry, NR-Mike Macch vs. HM-Jared Haught
3.67 per year
nearly 1 in 5 finalists (18.3%) was below 30.
2024 - #49-Lucas Davison, #59-Mesenbrink
2023 - HM-Matt Ramos, NR-Tanner Sloan
2022 - NR-Kizhan Clarke, #40-Quincy Monday, #97-Deakin, #46-Myles Amine, #74-Max Dean
2021 - #76-Brandon Courtney, #35-Eierman, HM-Jesse Dellavechia, #40-Jake Wentzel
2020 - Canceled
2019 - NR-Drew Foster, #74-Max Dean, NR-Anthony Cassar
2018 - #35-Stevan Micic, #47-Seth Gross, #92-Bryce Meredith, NR-Ronnie Perry, NR-Mike Macch vs. HM-Jared Haught
3.67 per year
nearly 1 in 5 finalists (18.3%) was below 30.
Rankings are of course an inexact science. PSU seems to have been able to identify and land the truly elite guys - those that can challenge for a national title as a true freshman. I haven't seen a list, but I'd be curious to see how many wrestlers among the top programs were able to make the finals their true freshman year over the past 10-15 years. I'm sure PSU dominates that stat.
Don’t know the backstory or why any fanbase would abuse such a source. Guessing one-off, sidebar disagreements? Otherwise, all I’ve read in his posts (on both sites) are unbiased, objective takes on recruits and general wrestling topics. His insights on this thread alone seem nothing but well-reasoned and worthwhile.
Another way of looking at it is that more than 4 of 5 finalists (81.6%) were top 30. From a stats pov, that's pretty compelling. But let's agree that rankings are good but not perfect predictors of future performance. And let's agree that everyone would love a lineup comprised solely of top-5s.
If we had a track record of developing finalists from outside of the top 30, I'd say we're doing a killer job at identifying and/or developing diamonds in the rough. But I'm hard pressed to think of anyone since Montell Marion who fits that bill. (Okay, Seth Gross--credit for recruiting but not retaining.) Meanwhile, we have a hard time developing finalists from inside the top 10.
Looking at the presumed starters for 24-25 (per wrestlestat), half are "diamonds in the rough" who will top out at 7th/8th/R12--sometimes after multiple years as a starter. Call it the Cash Wilcke Syndrome. Recruiting top talent is certainly not horrible (4 out of 10 weights), but certainly inconsistent. This would be a great lineup for Illinois, but it's not the kind of lineup I'd expect from a coach whose mantra is "Domination."
25: #5 Ayala
33: #52 Petersen
41: #66 Schriever
49: #37 Rathjen
57: ? Siebrecht
65: TR Caliendo
74: #3 Kennedy/#93 Brands
84: #5 Arnold
97: #83 Glazier
285: #2 Kueter/? Hill
I think Iowa's biggest problem is that only 1 of those guys was a national champion.
We had 2 big misses with top 6 pfp guys Kennedy, who after 4 years in the program is what he is, and Nate, who didn’t even finish high school wrestling. Really misjudged his love of the sport and how burnt out he was. Assad doesn’t surprise me because I believe he quit once during high school also because of burn out.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I'm a big Max Murin fan. Awesome Hawkeye. But he was ranked between 27th - 40ish coming out of high school. Ended his NCAA career as a one time AA placing 6th.
Is he not a diamond or was he not in the rough?
The point stands recruits ranked 25-50 are on average very low worth compared to recruits ranked 1-25 and especially 1-10.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
1.4 Iowa vs 2.6 PSU. They're nearly double Iowa. Ouch.
how about the young man that left for ISU? He was a recruit - can't recall where he was at on the big board
Chittum was high on the big board but underperformed at the National Tournament for isu.
Angelo Ferrari was also #1 at one point. Many guys right off Anthony as not a big recruit in high school and write him off as never amounting to anything in college, but he was #14 on flo his junior year, and sat out injured his senior year. MM at PSU and Keck at UNI we’re in this ranking range in high school also
What's interesting about this list is how athletic these guys are. Almost every single one I can see playing another sport and playing it well.
And if they don't necessarily have that athleticism we keep talking about they have a unique wrestling style: Eierman, Meredith, Gross, etc.
Obviously, they wouldn't all be collegiate athletes in another, but I'm fully confident they'd be high school studs in the very least.
Now compare to the Iowa list you generated:
2015 - (1) #9-Kemerer
2016 - (2) #3-The Bull, #21-Kaleb Young
2017 - (2) #1-Spencer, #7-Jacob Warner
2018 - (1) #14-Cassioppi
2019 - (1) #29-Abe Assad
2020 - (1) - #4-Patrick Kennedy
2021 - (2) - #4-Drake Ayala, #16-Wyatt Henson
2022 - (0)
2023 - (3) - #6-Kueter, #19-Gabe, #26-Block
2024 - (1) - #7-Angelo Ferrari
Kueter and Gabe are the only ones I really see transitioning to bball. I can see KY, Assad, and Warner all finding success on the football field. Probably Block too, but I haven't seen enough of him to judge.
Outside of these, I'd add Bradley Hill and Rathjen as well and I think that's a big reason why they've found some success so far.
You can just see how these guys move, the fluidity. I think that's why Caliendo has made that jump to bona fide threat.
I remember seeing some videos of the wrestling team throwing baseballs or dribbling and how uncoordinated they were. Reminds of High School and how our wrestlers could only do one thing: wrestle.
I wonder if TNT took a shot like that on Ybarra and it failed and that is the type of scenario they shy away from so they stick to their same mold.
I think Iowa hits fine on their recruit rankings, could be better for sure, but it's still damn respectable. I think where we fall short is the TYPE of recruit we go after.
I don't have data to back this up, but I can't imagine there being a huge difference between the #15 - 30 in a class coming out of high school. I think what eventually separates them is the athleticism that can't be taught.
What El Dub is getting at is we need to go after the top of the board or best at that weight every year, even if it means recruiting over someone.
Get the absolute best that are available and let them duke it out.
165 & 174 will finally be the situation I've been wanting. Caliendo, PK, Brands, and Arnold all fighting for 2 spots.
We need to aim for that at all 10 weights.
