Basketball Recruiting: Clyburn to visit

**acgclone** · 04-07-2011, 03:54 PM

He's way too good to pass up obviously and it is worth tying a scholarship for 2 years, IMO. But with that said, I hope we can start getting some good HS players as well.

Whatever Fred is selling to transfers, should work to high school athletes as well.

Maybe with some better results and a tourney appearance, we'll be able to translate that recruiting success to HS as well.

**khaal53** · 04-07-2011, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by JUKEBOX

When the transfers sit out a year, don't they "develop" team chemistry?

I don't know, it's plausible but that isn't what I was talking about.

**swarthmoreCY** · 04-07-2011, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by khaal53

I agree with that sentiment. I would only add that a bench player--that if he can be kept content--could develop during that time instead.

Again, I'm not saying right or wrong, better or worse, just pointing out the difference in the scenarios that were presented.

The recruits may play different positions and come from different level's of competition, but in terms of opportunity cost, which is historically the negative of transfers, it is no different.

The scenarios presented, which concerns ISU MBB, there is no difference in that regard.

**khaal53** · 04-07-2011, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

The recruits may play different positions and come from different level's of competition, but in terms of opportunity cost, which is historically the negative of transfers, it is no different.

The scenarios presented, which concerns ISU MBB, there is no difference in that regard.

HS one-and-done: 1 total year on scholarship to play 1 year
Transfer (sit 1, play1): 2 years on schoalrship to play 1 year

Those are not the same. I'm not talking about specifics or player positions or where they came from. Just the overall scholarship investment for eligibility on the court.

**isuno1fan** · 04-07-2011, 04:03 PM

I don't care where they come from...I just want the best players we can get. FH understands this and I don't think he cares where they come from either. HS, Juco, Transfers....it really doesn't matter.

Watched Clyburn play this year and was definitely impressed. Would love to see him in Ames!

**RustShack** · 04-07-2011, 04:09 PM

I feel like we aren't going to get a lot of one and done players right now so I'm not sure where that is coming from. Also theres a pretty good chance we throw a RS on a HS player, which means he sits a year just like the transfer.

As for why we can't land HS kids, I'm sure we can.. but right now they aren't as good as the transfers. Some of them needed a second chance, we were in a position where we could take that risk. Some of them want to go to a school where they can start, we weren't that good so thats pretty easy to achieve. Some like that Fred is an NBA guy and the system he is installing. Most of the good HS kids want to play for a good school where they can win games and Championships.

We need transfers to make us win some games, so that the good HS kids want to come play here.

**acgclone** · 04-07-2011, 04:15 PM

It's silly to compare transfers to 1-and-done'rs because at this point, we have no realistic shot at most 1-and-done players. We do seem to be getting some very good transfers on the other hand, so I say go with it for now.

Obviously at some point we'll have to be able to transition to mainly HS athletes within the next couple recruiting classes. By 2013, hopefully you're seeing at least 2 HS athletes for every transfer/JUCO

**RustShack** · 04-07-2011, 04:16 PM

Yeah I don't quite understand why people want lesser talent because they can play four years versus one or two. If we could land those great HS players right now, they would already be committed.

**acgclone** · 04-07-2011, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by RustShack

As for why we can't land HS kids, I'm sure we can.. but right now they aren't as good as the transfers. Some of them needed a second chance, we were in a position where we could take that risk. Some of them want to go to a school where they can start, we weren't that good so thats pretty easy to achieve. Some like that Fred is an NBA guy and the system he is installing. Most of the good HS kids want to play for a good school where they can win games and Championships.

We need transfers to make us win some games, so that the good HS kids want to come play here.

Yes, I agree with this, especially the bolded part. For now, selling the NBA thing is more effective to some of the transfers, because they realize that it's now or never for them. HS kids all believe they'll be going to the NBA regardless, so they're more interested in playing for the "name" schools. Soon we'll be closer to a "name" school with the talent that we're bringing in. Also, word will get out if we do put some of these guys into the NBA, that Fred will prepare you for the next level and HS kids/coaches will start to pay attention.

**swarthmoreCY** · 04-07-2011, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by khaal53

HS one-and-done: 1 total year on scholarship to play 1 year
Transfer (sit 1, play1): 2 years on schoalrship to play 1 year

Those are not the same. I'm not talking about specifics or player positions or where they came from. Just the overall scholarship investment for eligibility on the court.

Which has no relevance to the difference in impact the two choices (1 year high schooler or 1 for 1 transfer) have on the program.

Again, I should have anticipated the need for the qualifier to assist in explaining what difference I was talking about- cost to the performance of the program (the difference that matters). I had thought this would be obvious, given it is impossible to have truly identical players. To an accountant, a post may require more food budget than a guard too.

**gwoodclone** · 04-07-2011, 04:24 PM

I would like to see more HS guys too, but I think that will come with time. And if these transfers work out like we hope, it's going to get a lot easier to bring in highly rated HS guys. Right now, we just can't pass up on the opportunity to bring in talent like Clyburn.

I'm having a hard enough time restraining my optimism as is, bringing in Clyburn would make it even harder. The next couple years are looking like they could really be something special.

**CycloneErik** · 04-07-2011, 04:26 PM

If this stuff transfers us to making runs in the NCAAs, let's be Transfer U. until we just can't do it anymore.

**JUKEBOX** · 04-07-2011, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

If this stuff transfers us to making runs in the NCAAs, let's be Transfer U. until we just can't do it anymore.

**RustShack** · 04-07-2011, 04:31 PM

Because we will be so upperclass heavy the next two years.. I believe we will be in after the transfers and jucos for the next few years.. but it should start evening out more soon.

**BirdOfWar** · 04-07-2011, 04:33 PM

I can't say I get too excited about all these transfers, but I would rather have a good player on the scout team for a year, then no one on scholarship.

I think we've all seen what having a good scout team can do for a team. This years team didn't overachieve in the win column much, but they were in a heck of a lot of games.