Sorry about the confusion. I made reference to state champs in an effort to squash Vikes' referring to IMAC and Maur Hill and then talking about Iowa and the school he is at currently. People selectively create "success" in their own terms, then identify how they were a success. Because they build their own parameters, they judge themselves as a success.
Success is a subjective idea. For one it's state champs, for others it's keeping a program alive. The question is what do we mean when we say success?
For Gutwrench, success as a state means D1 athletes. He contends that Kansas doesn't have D1 calliber athletes. I say bull.
Vikes believes success for him in Kansas was to keep alive a program, which by the way died once he left. I don't fault him, but the initial post dealt with D1 athletes. Since we are dealing with the initial post, he had no room to speak on the matter.
Then again, I've yet to create a D1 prospect, so maybe I don't either. I've met with some people that have and oddly enough, they believe the same thing I do. Then again, Kansas hasn't had all that many, so maybe we're washed up.
So what does it take?
1. National exposure. If you are just sitting at home March through July, you are not exposing yourself to coaches. Fargo is a meat market for talent and if you aren't producing there, most D1 coaches won't know who you are. This is their place to spot kids for their teams. Zach Allen comes to mind.
2. Intense dedication. I know of two kids in the Topeka area that have the dedication that coaches that level are looking for. This does not mean they will be offered or accept a D1 offer, it means they have the skills and work ethic.
3. Academic acalades. I'm probably speaking out of turn, but I'll use Brady Lamar who signed with Nebraska as an example. His work ethic is supurb, but ability (as of today) might be a little suspect. What Brady has is an excellent academic rating and the test scores to show it. I know he's a real wiz at math. So a coach might be willing to take a chance on him because there is the possibility of Brady making huge leaps and bounds in wrestling. If he doesn't, he's got academic scholarships that will pay the way. Cost to the program = $0. So they'll take a chance on him because if he doesn't pan out, it didn't hurt them financially.
This is not the case with football. I was fortunate enough to coach in a football staff that housed Rashaad Washington (NY Jets), Dante McCoy (Sullivan award finalist - I think that's what DII Hiesman equivalents win) and John Randle (KU's star running back and subsequently kicked off the team). The football budget has room for chances (100+ athletes). Wrestling does not.
I agree that wrestling has many more success stories out there that have nothing to do with wins/losses, but when you're interviewing for positions w/l are in important.
