Which schools recruit the top prospects ?

#2
#2
The thread title tempted me to say, "All of 'em" (as in every school attempts to get the best players possible for their program. They just can't all get the same recruits).

But, being serious, it's not surprising to see a team such as Duke at the top. Of course, Duke used to be a perennial contender, but they've always had that academic reputation that gave graduates a career edge (and doesn't hurt that they have other good sports programs). Other schools on the list have similar academic advantages to women who have more limited pro opportunities than the men do.

It will be interesting to see if rising women's pro salaries and the effects of coronavirus on competition/attendance have an effect in that area (long or short term) if women don't perceive that difference in the same light as before.

Of course, success breeds success. Expect Oregon to move up the scale rapidly if they continue to win.
 
#3
#3
creekdipper said:
The thread title tempted me to say, "All of 'em" (as in every school attempts to get the best players possible for their program. They just can't all get the same recruits).

But, being serious, it's not surprising to see a team such as Duke at the top. Of course, Duke used to be a perennial contender, but they've always had that academic reputation that gave graduates a career edge (and doesn't hurt that they have other good sports programs). Other schools on the list have similar academic advantages to women who have more limited pro opportunities than the men do.

It will be interesting to see if rising women's pro salaries and the effects of coronavirus on competition/attendance have an effect in that area (long or short term) if women don't perceive that difference in the same light as before.

Of course, success breeds success. Expect Oregon to move up the scale rapidly if they continue to win.
Click to expand...
You would be hard pressed to find two better degrees to possess than a degree from Duke or Stanford. I understand why anyone would choose those schools when it comes to academics and athletics combined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlennTenn, allvolallthetime, Momto2 and 3 others
#5
#5
The top list isn’t too surprising but Duke hasn’t recruited as well the last few years, most of those top recruits were the early part of the decade.

The top 10 has 4 teams with national championships, 3 teams that have been to multiple final fours this decade and 3 teams that have underachieved given their talent on paper. Two of those have made changes in the last year. Duke is still holding on for now.
 
#7
#7
https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbf91fbe7-0a63-475e-b8e3-666f9505be06_319x323.png
 
#14
#14
What this top 10 list screams to me is that COACHING, program infrastructure, player recruitment systems and development as it relates to program culture and offensive/defensive philosophy, and academic offering matters more than the number of stars next to the name of a potential recruit. Make no mistake that modern day millennial players want to play for a coach they feel a connection with (whatever that means to them), and a coach who can take them to the next level of their development, but above all, a coach who can take them to a championship. Does your program have all the modern amenities that will wow a potential recruit when they come for their visit, yes I know that has little to with winning on the court, the best of best players expect to see these things in 2020, look no further than your elite football programs. Coaches and programs must have a definite identity, i.e., when you play UConn you know your going to play a team that will stress you in every way, they will spread the floor, defensively challenge you and push you out position, push the pace, and reign 3's, and they recruit high skill level players to match their system and culture. Top players also want to know what do have beyond basketball, can if pursue my academic and professional goals at this school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1reVOLver, Coach Jumper and creekdipper
#15
#15
I think most of those players turn out to be average because star inflation is a real thing. ESPN used to only give out 10-15 five star ratings a year, but all of a sudden from 2014 onward there's 50 five star players per class. Star inflation. Are there really fifty girls that are game changing players? Hoopgurlz now says so, but I struggle to believe that. Good players? Yes. Great players? In some cases, probably. But fifty players who can be game changers? Seems unlikely to me. And thinking back to my AAU experiences, almost everyone knew the game changers in each class. Go watch a tournament or two and you'd come away knowing who dominated, and who took over games, and who looked the part. Those are the "real" five stars. And I think that's the philosophy ESPN used to have for its evaluations. But a list with a handful of five stars, a selection of four stars, and then three star players doesn't generate attention. Ain't nobody but die-hard fans clicking through to read about a three star signee. You know what people want to read about? Getting a four star recruit to sign up. Winning the commitment of a five star recruit. Sounds much better. So, inflate those rankings. Nudge the ratings upward. Spread the love around a little. You can write more articles about who has the best class and who did well in recruiting if you have more stars to talk about. Sure it makes the ratings less meaningful, but that's all for the fans anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brassie, JustaChicken, #1LVLS MAN 4 LIFE and 6 others
#16
#16
Surely you aren't suggesting a profit motive? Like all those "national champions" awards sponsored by the cheerleading academy system? Every SmallTown USA can boast a national champion or runner-up.

Suddenly, I feel all fuzzy and toasty inside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia
#17
#17
Voltopia said:
I think most of those players turn out to be average because star inflation is a real thing. ESPN used to only give out 10-15 five star ratings a year, but all of a sudden from 2014 onward there's 50 five star players per class. Star inflation. Are there really fifty girls that are game changing players? Hoopgurlz now says so, but I struggle to believe that. Good players? Yes. Great players? In some cases, probably. But fifty players who can be game changers? Seems unlikely to me. And thinking back to my AAU experiences, almost everyone knew the game changers in each class. Go watch a tournament or two and you'd come away knowing who dominated, and who took over games, and who looked the part. Those are the "real" five stars. And I think that's the philosophy ESPN used to have for its evaluations. But a list with a handful of five stars, a selection of four stars, and then three star players doesn't generate attention. Ain't nobody but die-hard fans clicking through to read about a three star signee. You know what people want to read about? Getting a four star recruit to sign up. Winning the commitment of a five star recruit. Sounds much better. So, inflate those rankings. Nudge the ratings upward. Spread the love around a little. You can write more articles about who has the best class and who did well in recruiting if you have more stars to talk about. Sure it makes the ratings less meaningful, but that's all for the fans anyway.
Click to expand...

That's my issue as well. Even the coveted 98 rating. There used to be no more than 3-4 per class. Now there's over 20. Hell, EDD was only a 97 when she was #1 in her class. All to protect feelings, I suppose...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia, Rickster and Coach Jumper
#18
#18
The old Blue Star Index always seemed to do a pretty good job of ranking the top players. I agree, there really shouldn’t be over 10-15 “5 star” players per class. Some of the players I’ve seen get that rating, in all programs, really aren’t all that great. They are good and some are very good but 5 stars should be reserved for those who are truly elite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia, 1reVOLver and Amb3096
#19
#19
It enables raters and rankers to be wrong...If they pick 50 and 15 turn out to be true 5-star players they still end up with 15!,,,,but over judge 35??

This is why I equate the present system with "participation trophies"
 
#20
#20
Amb3096 said:
That's my issue as well. Even the coveted 98 rating. There used to be no more than 3-4 per class. Now there's over 20. Hell, EDD was only a 97 when she was #1 in her class. All to protect feelings, I suppose...
Click to expand...

Feelings are totally involved, I think you're right about that. It's a bit of a "let's be nice and give people good scores" mentality that's completely against the notion of fairly assessing players. But going even further, it's also about the feelings of the programs and coaches, too. It helps a coach to say they recruited a four or five star player. Having that on their resume protects their career. And that in turn makes ESPN a part of their job security, which in turn creates a symbiotic relationship where each side promotes the other to further their own interests. Not that this is particular to women's basketball -- it's endemic in sports. Anyone who is not actually a coach or player, but whose livelihood is based on their relationships with those coaches and players, will work to maintain or improve that relationship. You give a player a good rating, a good ranking, you talk them up, they'll remember you. You post an article talking about how a coach has done well in recruiting, they'll remember you. You post positive articles about a program's trajectory or what have you, and I imagine even athletic departments will remember you. In this way, personal interests are elevated above the notion of accuracy or truth.

And there's a philosophical discussion around "well it's a business" and "it's just a game" that is utterly fascinating beneath that notion, but ... anyway, back to the point, yeah, feelings. I agree. Long-windedly, but I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1LVLS MAN 4 LIFE
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top