My biased and unresearched opinion is that we've made hay in the hwts (which I'll call 184-285) in that time we've developed penny (forced to drop to 197 to make room for walz and AA'ed there. Excellent development) Haught (later scholarship offer after super 32 senior year of I remember correctly, unsure he'd even beat out Reck for the starting job, barely qualified freshman year to finalist senior year) walz (not exactly under the radar but not the prize at St Ed's with heil and adounader back to back, 4 year qualifier at hwt. Developed waaaay early on the curve for a hwt where payoff is usually jr-sr year) Garwood (convinced he was an AA but never got the chance) and Taylor (probably a qualifier as well).

Another problem with using AA as the sole metric is that it can be misleading. I would argue that zavatsky and dance were two of the more important recruits for the program based on the stability they provided the coaching staff. One if the keys to becoming a great sustaining program is to get a good return in invested scholarship dollars, and from that perspective dance and zavatsky were real winners. They were the picture of consistency holding down a weight all 4 years and consistently getting wins. Both might tell you that they "underachieved" when ranked on AA but they are vital to a winning program.

Looking at middleweight, I think we've recruited best there, with us hitting on can't miss recruits. And at lightweights, we were very fortunate to have the cburg pipeline.