|
|
Post by bennyskid on May 5, 2021 6:19:53 GMT -8
Four of the top 10 are Pac-12 schools. TSDTR doesn't make the top 50.
|
|
|
|
Post by sewingbeaver on May 5, 2021 6:40:18 GMT -8
Interesting how some schools can get such high rank with just one player's commitment - Stanford/Arizona etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on May 5, 2021 7:26:44 GMT -8
Looking at the list. Is "No. 24, 5'8/G Kailyn Gilbert" at UA the daughter of Arenas Gilbert? Thought maybe so since he was a Wildcat too. Anyway, just popped into my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on May 5, 2021 7:29:01 GMT -8
Looking at the list. Is "No. 24, 5'8/G Kailyn Gilbert" at UA the daughter of Arenas Gilbert? Thought maybe so since he was a Wildcat too. Anyway, just popped into my head. The UA player was Gilbert Arenas....not Arenas Gilbert. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on May 5, 2021 8:51:21 GMT -8
Interesting how some schools can get such high rank with just one player's commitment - Stanford/Arizona etc. This is BB. It's all it takes. If you could recruit (and keep) the #1 player every year, and then fill out the roster with random 3-stars - you would have a national-championship caliber team every single year. This site seems to get it right.
(#3) Stanford has the #1. (#4) Duke has #8, #40, and #703. I think more than 50% of the coaches out there would prefer Tara's class (at least, if they were starting with Stanford's current roster.) At Stanford, a #40 is probably riding the pine for a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on May 5, 2021 9:06:40 GMT -8
Four of the top 10 are Pac-12 schools. TSDTR doesn't make the top 50.
Nice to see. Where do they have our 2021 class ranked? And does that ranking reflect the addition of AJ? |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 5, 2021 9:17:31 GMT -8
Wait I thought top prospects all wanted to play "up-tempo?"
|
|
|
|
Post by greybeav on May 5, 2021 9:20:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on May 5, 2021 9:31:11 GMT -8
Interesting how some schools can get such high rank with just one player's commitment - Stanford/Arizona etc. This is BB. It's all it takes. If you could recruit (and keep) the #1 player every year, and then fill out the roster with random 3-stars - you would have a national-championship caliber team every single year. This site seems to get it right.
(#3) Stanford has the #1. (#4) Duke has #8, #40, and #703. I think more than 50% of the coaches out there would prefer Tara's class (at least, if they were starting with Stanford's current roster.) At Stanford, a #40 is probably riding the pine for a few years.
Mostly true, but I think anyone who thinks a #40 is really a #40 is badly mistaken. They may be top 20, or they may not really even be in the top 100. WBB rankings have drastically improved in recent years, but they are still very inconsistent. Was Taylor Jones #16 (Prospects Nation) or #43 (ESPN) in 2019......or was Kennedy Brown #20 (ESPN) or was she #100 (Prospects Nation)? Or, for that matter was Talia's drop to number 25 in the 2021 rankings justified when Hoopgurlz changed evaluators? All I'm saying is there may be very little to no difference between #30 and #75....and that doesn't even take into consideration which players improve/develop more once they are playing at the college level. |
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on May 5, 2021 9:33:46 GMT -8
Yes, the services are also very poor at updating when there are changes. I remember watching one player in particular last season that announced on her commitment on twitter, but Hoopgurlz continued to show her uncommitted for months. |
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on May 5, 2021 9:53:55 GMT -8
In general, I think the recruiting services do a good job of nailing the Top 25, or so, players in the country.
If you knew nothing about a player except that she was Nationally rated #20, for example, you would be glad she signed with your school. Or, at least, view it as a good sign.
Moreso than, for example, if your school signed a player who was National rated # 60.
Nobody in their right mind thinks these ratings are infallible, or perfect. And nobody who knows anything about recruiting CLAIMS they are. On the whole, however, they are good predictors of talent and of success at the college level. It's no accident Sasha was rated higher than Noelle, or Talia higher than Jas.
I think any fan who said he'd rather have 5 players rated 50 - 55 than players 5 rated 5 - 10 would probably have a screw loose. In a long career, I've never met a coach who would.
On the other hand, things are a bit silly when the above recruiting service ranks a Duke player #703!!🤡. That's approaching absurdity. Duke is really happy they signed her rather than the kid ranked # 745??
But, we all notice these recruiting rankings and their publications, we comment and complain about them, hundreds of coaches actually pay to read them, and most of us like to chirp and chatter about them.
To claim they are pointless betrays your ignorance, to claim they are perfect betrays it even more.
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on May 5, 2021 10:03:36 GMT -8
Thanks greybeav. They have AJ ranked number 92 and still show her going to Washington - another service that is right up to date. |
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on May 5, 2021 10:30:52 GMT -8
Looking at the list. Is "No. 24, 5'8/G Kailyn Gilbert" at UA the daughter of Arenas Gilbert? Thought maybe so since he was a Wildcat too. Anyway, just popped into my head. The UA player was Gilbert Arenas....not Arenas Gilbert. Ha, stupid comma. (Been a LONG day already) |
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on May 5, 2021 11:14:51 GMT -8
In general, I think the recruiting services do a good job of nailing the Top 25, or so, players in the country. If you knew nothing about a player except that she was Nationally rated #20, for example, you would be glad she signed with your school. Or, at least, view it as a good sign. Moreso than, for example, if your school signed a player who was National rated # 60. Nobody in their right mind thinks these ratings are infallible, or perfect. And nobody who knows anything about recruiting CLAIMS they are. On the whole, however, they are good predictors of talent and of success at the college level. It's no accident Sasha was rated higher than Noelle, or Talia higher than Jas. I think any fan who said he'd rather have 5 players rated 50 - 55 than players 5 rated 5 - 10 would probably have a screw loose. In a long career, I've never met a coach who would. On the other hand, things are a bit silly when the above recruiting service ranks a Duke player #703!!🤡. That's approaching absurdity. Duke is really happy they signed her rather than the kid ranked # 745?? But, we all notice these recruiting rankings and their publications, we comment and complain about them, hundreds of coaches actually pay to read them, and most of us like to chirp and chatter about them. To claim they are pointless betrays your ignorance, to claim they are perfect betrays it even more. GO BEAVS!! Just wanted a video of Duke's #703. If this is #703, then this is a pretty good crop of ballers |
|
escott58
Sophomore
Posts: 1,178
Grad Year: 1983
|
Post by escott58 on May 5, 2021 11:22:06 GMT -8
Just wanted a video of Duke's #703. If this is #703, then this is a pretty good crop of ballers She's really good - it's gotta be hard to watch 1,000 young 'uns let alone 703. |
|
