Comparing ISU to Utah
- Thread starter OPButtrey
- Start date
1. IWCC is good. Kansas isn't as far from Iowa as CA is from Utah. These kids aren't from Kansas.
2. 49 Iowans Includes walk ons
3. Samoans are all about building a pipeline. Need a solid juco connection because many aren't ready for school. Honestly we should have Patrick Augafa on staff, that's what it takes. Also, recruit the JCs in Utah full of Samoan
/Tongan talent. A lot of the Samoans don't blow up size wise until around 20 and live here. Mike Leach and then later players they kept on staff were bringing 10-15 Polynesians a year into Iowa Wesleyan.
Good post and I agree with the gist of your post, the difference between ISU and Utah is the line play. Utah is always very physical on the LOS.
Good topic by the OP.
The kids play football twelve months a year in Texas. They should have better players.
A few of the times we've tried it's been years before the game happens and that team just happens to be good by the time we play them.
Utah is actually the most popular school in the state. My guess is you are comparing them to BYU in the bolded statement above. While BYU has more of a national following - due to the LDS church - they don't dominate the local headlines. Utah is the major public school there. Similar comparison would be Duke and North Carolina.
In our state, Iowa has a larger fanbase than we do. The number of in-state kids who dream of playing for the Hawkeyes is greater than those who dream of playing for us.
In addition, the state of Utah usually is in the top half of the country in terms of producing FBS players - usually somewhere between 20-25. However, they are usually around the top 10 per capita. Iowa, on the other hand, is typically around 40th in the country in producing FBS talent and only slightly better per capita.
Third, Utah is closer to California than we are to Texas. Less distance from home. And California has less competition for players than Texas. Plus Utah has some awesome natural features to sell to recruits. While none of these factors has a major impact, they do have some impact.
So... Utah is the top dog in a state that produces more FBS talent than Iowa. A better comparison in terms of advantages/disadvantages would be more like University of Nevada? New Mexico State? At the P5 level, maybe Syracuse? Washington State? Those are probably better peer groups.
Wisconsin and Iowa might disagree. It just seems that we (ISU) don't want big, beefy, maulers on our lines. Which is too bad. That is about the only competitive advantage we have being in Iowa.
Not the only reason, they also have ALOT more to choose from. Those super 5A schools are huge in Texas. Is Valley the biggest high school in Iowa?
Looking at this map,
I think Washington State and Kansas State are the schools that most closely resemble ISU's profile as a second-fiddle school in terms of fanbase from a small state. (Oklahoma State perhaps as well, but T. Boone and Texas proximity change things in their favor.)
Wazzu snagged a good coach and still can't win so they're pretty much in the same boat as us. K-State has maybe the best college football coach of all time and was garbage without him when Ron Prince came in.
This isn't giving me a lot of hope - but both Wazzu and K-State have won and won big. (Think Ryan Leaf and Collin Klein.) So it's possible, and we shouldn't give up on it.
Source
Hoping that the next staff realizes this and builds the team around mauling line play.
FYI, Juco U, Kansas State, has 13 jucos on scholarship. One of those players was a walk on out of juco. It would appear that Snyder's recruiting has swung back to high school and only using jucos to fill gaps.
They have one of the most fun rosters to look through the names. My wife wanted to know how to pronounce #87 on their team, so we pulled up the roster to see how many names we could butcher during the game. Great in home date night activity while the kids slept.
I disagree with this. Iowa, Wisconsin, Mizzou, Nebraska, even (sigh) Minnesota have been able to develop strong line play using kids from the midwest.
There is no reason ISU can't follow this same mold. There is certainly an uphill recruiting battle when Wisconsin and Iowa are so well known for putting linemen in the NFL, but if ISU wants to establish their identity (and I think they should) as a team focused on being physical at the point of attack and filling in the gaps from there, they can with the kids around here.
I know in Arkansas, the local in Bentonville did not really want a second high school built as 5000 students gave them an advantage for football.
True about some of the intended non-pulse teams. But if we can't compete with Mac or other mid-major or FCS teams, the comparison to Utah gets thrown out. Think they would have struggled with, much less lost to Toledo this year? ND State last year?
I want a line that will shoot up a rival QB's car if they have to, I don't care where they're from.
Attachments
Great analysis. I think it's close enough to give us a reason to believe. Sure people will say it's closer to California than we are to Texas (BTW, it's really not. Ames to Dallas is 730 miles, SLC to either LA or SF is almost identical). They'll respond that they have other built-in advantages (mountains, Samoans, etc.). Every time someone throws out a "why can't we be like XXX?", everyone finds reasons we can't be.
The reality is that if we were to hire a great coach, one that brought a good staff, was willing to work hard, recruit and scheme his butt off, we could win. Follow whatever model it takes. Ground and pound, spread, whatever. But bring a vision, a scheme, some solid coaches and get players.
Don't be lazy and simply recruit the guys we can talk into coming here and be left with over 50% non-productive recruits as well as huge gaps in various position groups (OL, LB, QB recently). You've got facilities, a beautiful stadium. You compete in a conference which is widely followed and will get you exposure. Go get players! Then coach them to win. Don't give excuses.
Pay that coach a decent salary. Maybe he'll fall in love with the place and program he has built. If not, he moves on and we have a place a guy can win at and the next hire is easier (Urban Meyer to Wittingham). I hate that we continually throw out reasons we can't win and point out differences between us and programs that have done it. Kansas State, Utah, Iowa, North freakin' Western, Duke, Arizona, many more. There are strong reasons all should not win. But they do.
Fred Hoiberg came here with all the ingredients named above. Took a non-traditional approach with the transfers. Didn't make excuses for why he couldn't do what others have done. And he won. Mangino at Kansas? He won. Patterson at TCU? He wins.
Coming from a TCU fan, so this should be taken with a grain of salt...
I honestly think ISU needs to find a way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the conference. Currently ISU runs pretty much the same offense as 3/4 of the conference with fewer elite athletes and less speed. Every player on every team see the ISU basic offense on a week in / week out basis. I honestly think ISU should try to totally differentiate themselves. I think a great team to emulate is Georiga Tech. A true triple option offense requires only a couple elite playmakers and a smart/quick QB (who does not even have to be able to throw that great). It is a difficult offense to prepare for if you only see it once a season. It might not be the flashiest or the most fun offense to watch, but it gives teams a chance to win.
Or maybe do what Arkansas does; get huge lineman and run the ball every single play.
But one thing these teams have in common is they are run based ball control teams (which you don't really see in the Big 12 aside from KSU).
I honestly think ISU needs to find a way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the conference. Currently ISU runs pretty much the same offense as 3/4 of the conference with fewer elite athletes and less speed. Every player on every team see the ISU basic offense on a week in / week out basis. I honestly think ISU should try to totally differentiate themselves. I think a great team to emulate is Georiga Tech. A true triple option offense requires only a couple elite playmakers and a smart/quick QB (who does not even have to be able to throw that great). It is a difficult offense to prepare for if you only see it once a season. It might not be the flashiest or the most fun offense to watch, but it gives teams a chance to win.
Or maybe do what Arkansas does; get huge lineman and run the ball every single play.
But one thing these teams have in common is they are run based ball control teams (which you don't really see in the Big 12 aside from KSU).
The problem is because of Wisconsins past success, they get the best O linemen from the midwest on average, but even they have Polynesian starter on their line from Hawaii. I don't count Eastern Iowa Univ. because they are completely hit and miss from season to season on whether they are actually good at running the ball, or just going against weak competition.
Like one poster said...recruit heavier out of the JCs for O linemen, I know we have some now, but having a pipeline to a JC is almost as good as having a pipeline to a good high school state (not Cali, TX, FL, etc).
I hear it over and over from my friends...Power running teams are boring...Who wants to watch that?...I do, because I think it's our best chance at winning ball games in the Big12. Every year that ISU has been to a bowl game has seen the ISU rushing attack have either a single back with over 1000 yards or combined backs going for over 1000 yards rushing.