If Tom left tomorrow, yes — you could almost guarantee meaningful roster movement. Drake Ayala, Kennedy, and Caliendo are the obvious names. Mocco, the Bachmans, and the Kennys would likely evaluate their options as well. Of course, the next hire would matter, but pretending the risk isn’t real ignores how college wrestling actually works.
There’s also a reason Ybarra, Cruz, Arnold, Estrada, Peterson, and Voinovich are still around. It’s not blind loyalty or denial. They don’t artificially place blame on the coaching staff when things don’t go their way. They’ve taken ownership of their development, accepted lineup reality, and continued to grind. That mindset matters.
By contrast, some of the wrestlers who left — Rathjen, Rhodes, Hill — believed they should have been in the lineup and placed that outcome primarily on the staff. That doesn’t make them wrong or bad wrestlers, but it does reflect a different way of processing adversity. And if we’re being honest, their competitive results elsewhere haven’t supported the idea that coaching was the limiting factor.
At elite programs, athletes follow assistants and relationships, not just head coaches or logos.
When Cael Sanderson left Iowa State for Penn State, ISU commits and relationships followed him — David Taylor, Ed Ruth, Andrew and Dylan Alton, and Frank Molinaro all chose Cael over the school.
When David Taylor later left Penn State (functionally acting as an assistant and RTC pillar), his development gravity went with him, immediately affecting trust and pathways in that room.
When Chris Perry left Oklahoma State, Carroll followed him, again reinforcing that athletes move with the coach they believe in most.
At Northern Colorado, Nickerson didn’t leave until Andrew Alirez was finished, because that relationship — not the institution — was the anchor and Nickerson sacrificed because he knew it wouldn't affect him, Alirez wasn't getting into West Point
That seems to be today's model.
Now ask the uncomfortable but necessary question:
If Morningstar, Terry, Dennis, or Telford left Iowa tomorrow, would we expect multiple starters or elite recruits to follow? Almost certainly not. And that’s the red flag.
This isn’t an argument that Tom is the problem in the way critics frame it. He’s a great name, a great coach, and he absolutely builds relationships. The real issue is structural: Tom has consistently shown discomfort surrounding himself with assistants who carry independent value, recruiting pull, and athlete loyalty — and he has been unwilling to fix that.
In today’s environment, dynasties are built by assistant-driven connective tissue. Iowa doesn’t lack tradition or leadership. It lacks a staff structure that distributes trust and benefit beyond the head coach. And none have ability to push back because they know their value is highest serving Tom.
Keep Tom if you want — but fix the staff. Because right now, the risk to the program isn’t change.
It’s standing still.
There’s also a reason Ybarra, Cruz, Arnold, Estrada, Peterson, and Voinovich are still around. It’s not blind loyalty or denial. They don’t artificially place blame on the coaching staff when things don’t go their way. They’ve taken ownership of their development, accepted lineup reality, and continued to grind. That mindset matters.
By contrast, some of the wrestlers who left — Rathjen, Rhodes, Hill — believed they should have been in the lineup and placed that outcome primarily on the staff. That doesn’t make them wrong or bad wrestlers, but it does reflect a different way of processing adversity. And if we’re being honest, their competitive results elsewhere haven’t supported the idea that coaching was the limiting factor.
At elite programs, athletes follow assistants and relationships, not just head coaches or logos.
When Cael Sanderson left Iowa State for Penn State, ISU commits and relationships followed him — David Taylor, Ed Ruth, Andrew and Dylan Alton, and Frank Molinaro all chose Cael over the school.
When David Taylor later left Penn State (functionally acting as an assistant and RTC pillar), his development gravity went with him, immediately affecting trust and pathways in that room.
When Chris Perry left Oklahoma State, Carroll followed him, again reinforcing that athletes move with the coach they believe in most.
At Northern Colorado, Nickerson didn’t leave until Andrew Alirez was finished, because that relationship — not the institution — was the anchor and Nickerson sacrificed because he knew it wouldn't affect him, Alirez wasn't getting into West Point
That seems to be today's model.
Now ask the uncomfortable but necessary question:
If Morningstar, Terry, Dennis, or Telford left Iowa tomorrow, would we expect multiple starters or elite recruits to follow? Almost certainly not. And that’s the red flag.
This isn’t an argument that Tom is the problem in the way critics frame it. He’s a great name, a great coach, and he absolutely builds relationships. The real issue is structural: Tom has consistently shown discomfort surrounding himself with assistants who carry independent value, recruiting pull, and athlete loyalty — and he has been unwilling to fix that.
In today’s environment, dynasties are built by assistant-driven connective tissue. Iowa doesn’t lack tradition or leadership. It lacks a staff structure that distributes trust and benefit beyond the head coach. And none have ability to push back because they know their value is highest serving Tom.
Keep Tom if you want — but fix the staff. Because right now, the risk to the program isn’t change.
It’s standing still.
Last edited:
