Recruit Lists v2.0
- Thread starter SvrWxCy
- Start date
The type of schools a recruit like Jarvis will be able to look at will likely have that, or better. Both are/were fringe top-100 guys, I doubt top recruits are going to think anything of it. Most good teams have that.
Once again, top rated recruits don't fear competition unless it is against other top rated players. They always have the mentality that they will start regardless. How else do you think KU, UK, etc sign all these top guys? You don't think they all have top rated guys at the position as well?
You don't have to fear competition to see a better opportunity somewhere else. I don't know what he's thinking but if he steers away from ISU I won't consider him afraid.
That is the thing, it is still way too soon to say those other schools have better opportunities like the one poster was suggesting just because we have a couple unproven, borderline top-100 guys.
I agree that it is way too soon to tell with the other schools. I also think it is niave, that if he sees we already have 2 young but proven point gaurds already in our system, that there might be more playing time with one of the other teams.
If he is ok with red-shirting or not playing much right away, then it might not make a difference.
But I'd like to see just one example of a team having 3 top 100 PG's on the team at the same time, let alone a bunch of examples like you say is the case with most high major teams. It just doesn't happen. Even the blue bloods like KU, UK, UNC, Duke. They do not have 3 top 100 PG's on their team at the same time.
Do they not? They certainly could if they wanted to.
If you go by some rating services, we only have one top-100 pg, and he is often considered a combo. It wouldn't be Jarvis redshirting. Borderline top-100 recruits are not the detriment you make it out to be. Now, if you were talking about actual top recruits, maybe you would have something, but given KU signed 4 top-100 shooting guards alone last year, I doubt it.
No they do not. I just went through Rivals to confirm my thoughts. Who is considered a combo gaurd? Monte? Also, it might not be a factor if he was that much better than the other two, (example, if he was the number 1 PG in the class) But Man Man was ranked 98th on rivals and would have two years of experience on him. Custer was ranked 90th, and would have one year of experience on him. He is ranked 68th.
Just seems like a log jam to me.
SG is a different story, because more teams play multiple shooting guards at the same time. I can't think of one example of 3 top 100 PG's on the same team at the same time.
Maybe he will invite the competition, and want to come here anyway, I just think he has to at least be wary of fighting for playing time his first 2 years if he comes here.
Regardless, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here.
Certainly, but when the rubber meets the road it will probably be a factor. I hope there about 100 factors so we'll probably never know how much weight any one factor holds. Sometimes a prospect will be very candid...not often.
Again, you are using top-100 pg like it is some unequivocal measurement. It is nothing to a good recruit, not to mention we only have 1 top-100 pg, and he is known as a combo.
Many more teams play pgs than multiple shooting guards- like ISU in 1999-2000, or ISU this season. If you are a pg, you can play any of the guard spots. No true for most shooting guards. For example, we play with just MM and Kane, while we cannot just have Thomas and Naz in as the only two guards.
Anywhere he goes he will be fighting for playing time- likely with better players than just one top-100 guy.
Come commitment day ISU may be "tied" with another team he's interested in and that other team may really need a PG badly. That could be the difference. Of course, that other team may actually have more impressive guards and that may give ISU the advantage. To say that other talented players at a similar position aren't a factor is a little silly. Aren't we using that very reasoning for KU and Vaughn? We don't know how true it is but it certainly makes sense. The fact that they are top 100 isn't the factor. These guys know how good the others are independent of their ranking.
No I am not sensitive. And I agree with your point.
I don't know why people think there is some sort of a pipeline established either, we have not recruited the TC's very well, even though we have tried.
You were just way too cheery with this team for about a month, I was worried about you.
At the time of the early signing period for Jarvis Johnson ISU will have a returning back up sophomore PG and an incoming 6'0 white kid from Kansas. It's competition, yes, but I'd be surprised if he looks at that and thinks he couldn't beat them out. Most high level players are pretty confident coming out of HS where they dominated.
There won't be too many competitive teams that a freshman PG can expect just to waltz in and start.
Just to be clear I'm pretty happy with the PG situation for next year. Also like the idea of bringing in someone who can play point nearly every year. You never want to be in the situation where you have zero or even only 1 good, proven PG on the roster.
There won't be too many competitive teams that a freshman PG can expect just to waltz in and start.
Just to be clear I'm pretty happy with the PG situation for next year. Also like the idea of bringing in someone who can play point nearly every year. You never want to be in the situation where you have zero or even only 1 good, proven PG on the roster.
Last edited:
That is not what I am saying.
I am saying that it will not be the negative factor the other poster was suggesting, because despite the CF hype, our roster is not stacked like most of the top programs are. If you went by CF from earlier this year, some were thinking having Long, Thomas, and SDW was going to be a negative factor in getting Vaughn. Hell, just two weeks ago a poster alluded to ISU being at a disadvantage compared to Vaughn's other suitors due to the crowded ISU roster.
Now, Jarvis is not yet a Vaughn level recruit, but he is closer to that than he is Custer. Nevermind the fact that Fred loves small ball, so there are more minutes available to satisfy multiple good pgs than a program that plays more conventionally.
Exactly why having two fringe top-100 players is rarely a huge barrier to PT..
Wow! I WANT too! Can we give him some twitter love, or does that violate NCAA regulations? I am too old for twitter and don't have an account. I just hope that there are not any issues with his prep school. I know that Wesley Johnson was an unknown when we landed him as well. I think I remember that his prep school closed before the season even started and no one had heard of him as well (if he does commit I hope he works out better than Wes though). He appears to be a good alternative if Cunningham has cooled on us.
Well, it certainly isn't going to be a positive factor.
Recruiting analysts disagree. Per Rivals rankings, Johnson (68) is much closer to Custer (90) than Vaughn (7).
And who is this combo guard you keep speaking of? I would consider both Morris and Custer pure PG's.
Anyway, I see neither side is going to budge in this disagreement, and I usually agree with your stance here, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.