2023 Recruiting

#407
#407
Today's classes are beginning to run deep in talent with maybe two or three players ahead of the other, but you can now say 1 thru maybe 30 you can get some top quality players. In the tourney just watched Barker ranked number two and Whitehorn ranked number 20 were similar in talent with Whitehorn putting up the better numbers in this tourney. Whitehorn led the tourney in rebounds 8.8 to Barker's 7.3 was better from the field 46 percent to 35 percent and also had the higher scoring average. I don't see in this case where Barker number two is going to be much better than Whitehorn number 20. This rings true for a lot of positions these days classes are deeper and anyone ranked in the top five at their position can play. JMO but having seen both Watkins and Barker I think Watkins is the better player both athletically and basketball skills. Watkins is ranked 12 Barker 2. I like both players just not any measurable large difference in what they will bring to a team. I honestly believe Watkins will bring more and if I were a team recruiting them both I would lean toward Watkins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy, Rickster and Volfaninfl2
#408
#408
I saw a lot of 2023's that were fabulous. if you can get about three or four of the top forty players games against the best teams are going to come down to execution as talent will be very similar. Actually in the last NCAA we saw Arizona out execute teams more talented than they were. Were going to see every season at least 7 to 10 teams that will be National title contenders. We'll have that many next season. One or two surprise teams could go far like Arizona which was totally unexpected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVols_WBK and Rickster
#409
#409
Volfan2012 said:
I saw a lot of 2023's that were fabulous. if you can get about three or four of the top forty players games against the best teams are going to come down to execution as talent will be very similar. Actually in the last NCAA we saw Arizona out execute teams more talented than they were. Were going to see every season at least 7 to 10 teams that will be National title contenders. We'll have that many next season. One or two surprise teams could go far like Arizona which was totally unexpected.
Click to expand...

You mean we don't have to land consensus top 5 players in order to compete? Amazing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy and Volfan2012
#410
#410
Rickster said:
You mean we don't have to land consensus top 5 players in order to compete? Amazing!
Click to expand...
Sometimes the consensus top ten may not actually be the top ten. That became obvious to me just watching a couple of these tournaments. I saw players ranked as low as thirty that could really play just as well as a similar player ranked higher. Much different than it was even ten years ago talent is everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster1, Volfaninfl2 and Rickster
#411
#411
I agree. Rankings are a matter of opinion. There are kids ranked in top 10 that are honestly not much better than kids ranked 20th or lower and I've saw some REALLY GOOD talent ranked in top 50
I think if you would put their talent up side by side there wouldn't be much of a difference. I think if you can get kids in the top 50 in a specific class your doing pretty good.
Also you have to look at what each kid is great at. Say TN needs an elite shooter, then they got to recruit an elite shooter and that kid may not be ranked as high as another kid that is NOT an elite shooter however you have to recruit what you need. JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickster and Volfan2012
#412
#412
CP3_LVFL said:
I agree. Rankings are a matter of opinion. There are kids ranked in top 10 that are honestly not much better than kids ranked 20th or lower and I've saw some REALLY GOOD talent ranked in top 50
I think if you would put their talent up side by side there wouldn't be much of a difference. I think if you can get kids in the top 50 in a specific class your doing pretty good.
Also you have to look at what each kid is great at. Say TN needs an elite shooter, then they got to recruit an elite shooter and that kid may not be ranked as high as another kid that is NOT an elite shooter however you have to recruit what you need. JMO
Click to expand...

rankings are also all inclusive...the top "center" could be #11 bc 3 PG, 4 forwards and 3 combo guards could be ranked ahead of the nation's top center...if all you need is a true "5", then you have the #1 at your position, even with the #11 recruit
 
  • Like
Reactions: allen phillips, volfan__18, creekdipper and 3 others
#413
#413
Rickster said:
You mean we don't have to land consensus top 5 players in order to compete? Amazing!
Click to expand...

How many national championship teams over the last fifty years did not have such a player?

Most had multiple ones.

It is what it is and the rest is just rationalization.

It isn't that you can't find players who become elite further down in the rankings. It is that the likelihood of doing so falls precipitously with ranking. I charted the number of wins for SEC football teams over ten years and they all finished within one place of their average recruiting ranking for that same time period. No team outperformed their talent level. In SEC football at least, which is a mature sport, you are what your recruiting ranking says you are over any significant amount of time. Think about that. There is not enough advantage that can be found in development, or scheme and play calling to make up more than one place in the rankings when all is said and done. Which makes sense when you remember that all assistant coaches are hired from the same pool and teach the same things the same limited number of ways. They just recycle their way through various teams.

In women's basketball it is a little different because there is far less interest and far fewer resources are spent on scouting, coaching etc... so there will be some advantage to gain in places. But even there, no coach has shown they can regularly pull lower ranked players who pan out at the same rate as higher ranked ones. You can get one occasionally, and you can have a senior laden team which makes a run, but that is not the basis for sustained success. For every Ray you find you will get ten who play about how you expect and a couple who underperform. Those are poor odds and if you build your program around trying to always pull an inside straight you are going to fail.

Kellie understands this, even if the fans pretend not to. And she is making moves to more effectively recruit the more highly coveted players because she knows that is what needs to happen to get back on top. We had a nice class last year, and will see how good she is at spotting kids who might be a little under ranked soon enough. She just has to keep building and climbing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: olddog, 1reVOLver, youcancallmeAl and 1 other person
#414
#414
Voluble2 said:
How many national championship teams over the last fifty years did not have such a player?

Most had multiple ones.

It is what it is and the rest is just rationalization.

It isn't that you can't find players who become elite further down in the rankings. It is that the likelihood of doing so falls precipitously with ranking. I charted the number of wins for SEC football teams over ten years and they all finished within one place of their average recruiting ranking for that same time period. No team outperformed their talent level. In SEC football at least, which is a mature sport, you are what your recruiting ranking says you are over any significant amount of time. Think about that. There is not enough advantage that can be found in development, or scheme and play calling to make up more than one place in the rankings when all is said and done. Which makes sense when you remember that all assistant coaches are hired from the same pool and teach the same things the same limited number of ways. They just recycle their way through various teams.

In women's basketball it is a little different because there is far less interest and far fewer resources are spent on scouting, coaching etc... so there will be some advantage to gain in places. But even there, no coach has shown they can regularly pull lower ranked players who pan out at the same rate as higher ranked ones. You can get one occasionally, and you can have a senior laden team which makes a run, but that is not the basis for sustained success. For every Ray you find you will get ten who play about how you expect and a couple who underperform. Those are poor odds and if you build your program around trying to always pull an inside straight you are going to fail.

Kellie understands this, even if the fans pretend not to. And she is making moves to more effectively recruit the more highly coveted players because she knows that is what needs to happen to get back on top. We had a nice class last year, and will see how good she is at spotting kids who might be a little under ranked soon enough. She just has to keep building and climbing.
Click to expand...
If Arizona could've made that last basket they would have been one and it is going to start changing with every season going forward. Miss St would've been another when they beat the much more talented UConn but lost to SC. Somebody without a ranked top ten is going to break through eventually because they may actually have a top ten that wasn't ranked that high. Rankings were far more important five years ago than they are now as far as who has more talent. You still have four or five girls a class that are elite to everyone else then it gets quite close in talent and ability five through 30. Were getting more and more players per class with enormous talent and they all can't be ranked top ten even though they may have that kind of talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickster, LadyVols_WBK and youcancallmeAl
#415
#415
Volfan2012 said:
If Arizona could've made that last basket they would have been one and it is going to start changing with every season going forward. Miss St would've been another when they beat the much more talented UConn but lost to SC. Somebody without a ranked top ten is going to break through eventually because they may actually have a top ten that wasn't ranked that high. Rankings were far more important five years ago than they are now as far as who has more talent. You still have four or five girls a class that are elite to everyone else then it gets quite close in talent and ability five through 30. Were getting more and more players per class with enormous talent and they all can't be ranked top ten even though they may have that kind of talent.
Click to expand...

The other thing which helps in basketball is there are only five players on the court at a time, so if you luck out and get a really good lower ranked player then it has more effect on your outcome than in football.

But the truth is still that there have been no teams win the championship without top ranked talent. We can speculate that might be changing, but it hasn't happened yet so it is obvious which path increases your odds of success. There are hundreds of teams out there who do not recruit top ranked talent and maybe one a year will make a run. Whereas the ones who recruit the best are almost always there at the end. That isn't going to change any time soon, if ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allen phillips, Rooster1, olddog and 2 others
#416
#416
Voluble2 said:
The other thing which helps in basketball is there are only five players on the court at a time, so if you luck out and get a really good lower ranked player then it has more effect on your outcome than in football.

But the truth is still that there have been no teams win the championship without top ranked talent. We can speculate that might be changing, but it hasn't happened yet so it is obvious which path increases your odds of success. There are hundreds of teams out there who do not recruit top ranked talent and maybe one a year will make a run. Whereas the ones who recruit the best are almost always there at the end. That isn't going to change any time soon, if ever.
Click to expand...
True no one has done it we've had two runnerups to the title. Arizona and Miss St that got where they finished with mid- ranked talent. I agree you need one or two that stand out from everyone else. That now means getting one or an elite five or so because after that the talent very close in the next 25 or so. Whitehorn number 20 beat Barker number 2 in every stat in the Nike tourney. She might not do it next time they play a tourney but she proved she belonged with an elite this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlindsay and Rickster
#417
#417
Voluble2 said:
How many national championship teams over the last fifty years did not have such a player?

Most had multiple ones.

It is what it is and the rest is just rationalization.

It isn't that you can't find players who become elite further down in the rankings. It is that the likelihood of doing so falls precipitously with ranking. I charted the number of wins for SEC football teams over ten years and they all finished within one place of their average recruiting ranking for that same time period. No team outperformed their talent level. In SEC football at least, which is a mature sport, you are what your recruiting ranking says you are over any significant amount of time. Think about that. There is not enough advantage that can be found in development, or scheme and play calling to make up more than one place in the rankings when all is said and done. Which makes sense when you remember that all assistant coaches are hired from the same pool and teach the same things the same limited number of ways. They just recycle their way through various teams.

In women's basketball it is a little different because there is far less interest and far fewer resources are spent on scouting, coaching etc... so there will be some advantage to gain in places. But even there, no coach has shown they can regularly pull lower ranked players who pan out at the same rate as higher ranked ones. You can get one occasionally, and you can have a senior laden team which makes a run, but that is not the basis for sustained success. For every Ray you find you will get ten who play about how you expect and a couple who underperform. Those are poor odds and if you build your program around trying to always pull an inside straight you are going to fail.

Kellie understands this, even if the fans pretend not to. And she is making moves to more effectively recruit the more highly coveted players because she knows that is what needs to happen to get back on top. We had a nice class last year, and will see how good she is at spotting kids who might be a little under ranked soon enough. She just has to keep building and climbing.
Click to expand...

That's cool. Believe what you want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan2012
#418
#418
Volfan2012 said:
True no one has done it we've had two runnerups to the title. Arizona and Miss St that got where they finished with mid- ranked talent. I agree you need one or two that stand out from everyone else. That now means getting one or an elite five or so because after that the talent very close in the next 25 or so. Whitehorn number 20 beat Barker number 2 in every stat in the Nike tourney. She might not do it next time they play a tourney but she proved she belonged with an elite this time.
Click to expand...

If a player is ranked #5 at her position, she could be #25 overall. Not a top 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 player yet one of the top five players at her position. That's one reason I don't put much credence in overall rankings. If I needed a post and could sign one of the top five in the class, but that player is ranked #23, do I pass just because she is not a top 10 player?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSanon, mlindsay, creekdipper and 2 others
#419
#419
Rickster said:
If a player is ranked #5 at her position, she could be #25 overall. Not a top 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 player yet one of the top five players at her position. That's one reason I don't put much credence in overall rankings. If I needed a post and could sign one of the top five in the class, but that player is ranked #23, do I pass just because she is not a top 10 player?
Click to expand...
I've seen plenty of players ranked five at their position turn out to be about the same in talent as the players ranked ahead of them in a few cases better. Howard of Kentucky has played better than her ranking. So did some of the Arkansas girls. There are usually four or five elite players better than any others in a class then you usually start getting the same talent up to about 30. Burrell has developed into a player far better than her ranking took a couple of years, but I saw she had it in her when she was in High School. I'm not going to say that our incoming class will push us to top ten status. I am excited about them think they have the potential to get us there with our returnees not going to be like some on the board dismiss them as a bad class before they've even played a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hangtyme24, Benionsopinion, LadyVols_WBK and 1 other person
#420
#420
Volfan2012 said:
I've seen plenty of players ranked five at their position turn out to be about the same in talent as the players ranked ahead of them in a few cases better. Howard of Kentucky has played better than her ranking. So did some of the Arkansas girls. There are usually four or five elite players better than any others in a class then you usually start getting the same talent up to about 30. Burrell has developed into a player far better than her ranking took a couple of years, but I saw she had it in her when she was in High School. I'm not going to say that our incoming class will push us to top ten status. I am excited about them think they have the potential to get us there with our returnees not going to be like some on the board dismiss them as a bad class before they've even played a game.
Click to expand...

Elissa Cunane, Naz Hillman, Ari Mcdonald were all players ranked in the '50s coming out of high school and all landed on 2nd team associated press all American team and were program-changing players. Rhyne Howard number 32 player out of high school was 1st team last year. It is not just the top 4 or 5 players that make a difference anymore like it was 20 years ago. Hell, Chelsea Dungee was number 61 coming out of high school and look what she did for arkansas. There is great talent all over the top 100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hangtyme24, Tyree02, NoBackBoard and 7 others
#422
#422
Volfan2012 said:
Today's classes are beginning to run deep in talent with maybe two or three players ahead of the other, but you can now say 1 thru maybe 30 you can get some top quality players. In the tourney just watched Barker ranked number two and Whitehorn ranked number 20 were similar in talent with Whitehorn putting up the better numbers in this tourney. Whitehorn led the tourney in rebounds 8.8 to Barker's 7.3 was better from the field 46 percent to 35 percent and also had the higher scoring average. I don't see in this case where Barker number two is going to be much better than Whitehorn number 20. This rings true for a lot of positions these days classes are deeper and anyone ranked in the top five at their position can play. JMO but having seen both Watkins and Barker I think Watkins is the better player both athletically and basketball skills. Watkins is ranked 12 Barker 2. I like both players just not any measurable large difference in what they will bring to a team. I honestly believe Watkins will bring more and if I were a team recruiting them both I would lean toward Watkins.
Click to expand...

Thanks, would you expect their rankings to shift somewhat? That usually happens after a high quality evaluation period unless one is just a much better athlete therefore more upside.
 
#423
#423
lfvol said:
Thanks, would you expect their rankings to shift somewhat? That usually happens after a high quality evaluation period unless one is just a much better athlete therefore more upside.
Click to expand...
That is the way they have shifted the rankings in the past. Performance in AAU Tourneys is certainly one of the factors.
 
#424
#424
LadyVols_WBK said:
shade got some honors
Nike Nationals All-Event Teams
Click to expand...
Ruby Whitehorn best performance in tourney. F. Johnson won defensive mvp and also first team for scoring 16.2 ppg even though she shot 30 percent from the field. Shade actually shot a high percentage to win best offensive performance. Nothing for Justine or her teammate Jyanne both of which looked and played a lot better to me than Johnson. They didn't take 90 shots like she did. Johnson's team went 0 and 5.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVols_WBK
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top