|
|
Post by beavs6 on Jan 3, 2022 20:40:38 GMT -8
Well, it may surprise you that I disagree. www.ncsasports.org/articles-1/basketball-recruiting-rankingsPlace your own caveat anyway you want. Top 30 odd HS players, by my definition(and many others that make a lot of $) are more ready to make the leap to DI sports than say a typical 3 star. Doesn’t mean after 4 years the 5 star is better, just that a 5 star is more ready to make an immediate impact than a lesser rated player. Isn’t that why coaches try to get the highest rated(best players) they can get? Most teams would like to get 2-3 5 star players in back-back-back-back(you get the point) years that they can. I would say in this day and age, most if not ALL 5 stars are seen in person by most rating agencies multiple times. All 3 stars…nope. But for a HS hooper to get a 5 star rating, they have been seen by said services. |
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Jan 3, 2022 21:13:49 GMT -8
beavs6 is right about this. A few years back some of the girls weren't seen that often, but these days most of these girls are seen multiple times. Colleges pay big money to recruiting services who scout these girls. It's certainly not as big time yet as Football or Men's basketball, but it's a far cry from just a few years ago when not nearly as many girls where seen. Still, recruiting rankings are far from perfect, but the majority of the highly ranked girls go on to have very good college careers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 3, 2022 22:26:05 GMT -8
Well, it may surprise you that I disagree. www.ncsasports.org/articles-1/basketball-recruiting-rankingsPlace your own caveat anyway you want. Top 30 odd HS players, by my definition(and many others that make a lot of $) are more ready to make the leap to DI sports than say a typical 3 star. Doesn’t mean after 4 years the 5 star is better, just that a 5 star is more ready to make an immediate impact than a lesser rated player. Isn’t that why coaches try to get the highest rated(best players) they can get? Most teams would like to get 2-3 5 star players in back-back-back-back(you get the point) years that they can. I would say in this day and age, most if not ALL 5 stars are seen in person by most rating agencies multiple times. All 3 stars…nope. But for a HS hooper to get a 5 star rating, they have been seen by said services. Changing the target? "By definition, doesn’t 5 star literally mean ready to play at the DI level?" vs make the leap... better prepped than 3*" The rating is based on HS play vs inferior talent. It's not a predictor of their readiness as a D1 player student athlete. It basically says they are in the most gifted group that particular year. Most evaluations are athletic only. Coaches research everything. So, being ready has several levels besides what highlight tapes or AAU tournaments show. Plus no idea where the 3* detour comes from. Yhere was no mention of a comparison to 3*. Pretty obvious a 3* is even less prepared based on talent. No 5* plays vs elite college level talent game in game out in high school. Better in AAU, but the majority of summer circuit teams are 3* types. There are very few true 5* talents. Not sure which $ folks you speak, most recruiting site evaluators don't make big $. Most don't travel to tourneys far and wide. Most depend on word of mouth and highlight vids. We'll agree to disagree unless you want th o change the target again? |
|
|
|
Post by grad1973 on Jan 3, 2022 23:16:39 GMT -8
I think there are only so many 5 star players that are chosen. Our country is so big about 10 states could fill in all the 5 star players. I think some kids rated 5 star may not be, but the people picking them are trying to give more states the benefit of the doubt so the primary talent pools don’t dominate geographicly. I’m thinking close to home here also. I think most of are 5 stars deserve it but a few may not.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 3, 2022 23:36:46 GMT -8
I think there are only so many 5 star players that are chosen. Our country is so big about 10 states could fill in all the 5 star players. I think some kids rated 5 star may not be, but the people picking them are trying to give more states the benefit of the doubt so the primary talent pools don’t dominate geographicly. I’m thinking close to home here also. I think most of are 5 stars deserve it but a few may not. Plus with all the different levels of play it's impossible to rate most accurately. Some young ladies are just jump off the page automatic when you see them vs other high schoolers. Recruiting sites and rankings don't mean much to me personally. One if they (men or women) aren't a Beaver I don't care. Two, a ranking is an indicator of potential. Athletics is a "show me" activity. When they show they are a good student, person, and contribute then it's awesome. But, it's all the young person's doing, not the label put on them. Unfortunately, some think it works the other way around. As Beaver fans know all too well, "Expectation is the root of all heartbreak." Shakespeare |
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Jan 4, 2022 9:00:04 GMT -8
Well, it may surprise you that I disagree. www.ncsasports.org/articles-1/basketball-recruiting-rankingsPlace your own caveat anyway you want. Top 30 odd HS players, by my definition(and many others that make a lot of $) are more ready to make the leap to DI sports than say a typical 3 star. Doesn’t mean after 4 years the 5 star is better, just that a 5 star is more ready to make an immediate impact than a lesser rated player. Isn’t that why coaches try to get the highest rated(best players) they can get? Most teams would like to get 2-3 5 star players in back-back-back-back(you get the point) years that they can. I would say in this day and age, most if not ALL 5 stars are seen in person by most rating agencies multiple times. All 3 stars…nope. But for a HS hooper to get a 5 star rating, they have been seen by said services. Changing the target? "By definition, doesn’t 5 star literally mean ready to play at the DI level?" vs make the leap... better prepped than 3*" The rating is based on HS play vs inferior talent. It's not a predictor of their readiness as a D1 player student athlete. It basically says they are in the most gifted group that particular year. Most evaluations are athletic only. Coaches research everything. So, being ready has several levels besides what highlight tapes or AAU tournaments show. Plus no idea where the 3* detour comes from. Yhere was no mention of a comparison to 3*. Pretty obvious a 3* is even less prepared based on talent. No 5* plays vs elite college level talent game in game out in high school. Better in AAU, but the majority of summer circuit teams are 3* types. There are very few true 5* talents. Not sure which $ folks you speak, most recruiting site evaluators don't make big $. Most don't travel to tourneys far and wide. Most depend on word of mouth and highlight vids. We'll agree to disagree unless you want th o change the target again? Well, I guess I give you too much credit for having reasonable thought processes and discussion.(should have known better.***shrug) All my points were to have an intellectual discussion and be able to bridge point A to point B to point C with some context and try to have those here on the same page. I fed you information. If you choose not to follow--or worse can't--there is nothing I can do to help. If you don't understand the $$$ in athlete evaluation...even in Women's Hoops, I can't help you there either. Not here to argue. You can have your thoughts and if not open to discussion, that's your choice. Again...don't you think in general SR(or any NCAA DI women's HC) would rather have 2-3 5* level evaluated players every year(thus have 5*'s backing up 5*'s backing up 5*'s)? Again, by definition from most services, the players most ready to take the next step up from High School competition to DI competition immediately are 5* rated athletes. Hence the 5* rating. My thoughts and direction are pretty well laid out. You can have the last word on the subject if you choose. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 4, 2022 9:56:51 GMT -8
Changing the target? "By definition, doesn’t 5 star literally mean ready to play at the DI level?" vs make the leap... better prepped than 3*" The rating is based on HS play vs inferior talent. It's not a predictor of their readiness as a D1 player student athlete. It basically says they are in the most gifted group that particular year. Most evaluations are athletic only. Coaches research everything. So, being ready has several levels besides what highlight tapes or AAU tournaments show. Plus no idea where the 3* detour comes from. Yhere was no mention of a comparison to 3*. Pretty obvious a 3* is even less prepared based on talent. No 5* plays vs elite college level talent game in game out in high school. Better in AAU, but the majority of summer circuit teams are 3* types. There are very few true 5* talents. Not sure which $ folks you speak, most recruiting site evaluators don't make big $. Most don't travel to tourneys far and wide. Most depend on word of mouth and highlight vids. We'll agree to disagree unless you want th o change the target again? Well, I guess I give you too much credit for having reasonable thought processes and discussion.(should have known better.***shrug) All my points were to have an intellectual discussion and be able to bridge point A to point B to point C with some context and try to have those here on the same page. I fed you information. If you choose not to follow--or worse can't--there is nothing I can do to help. If you don't understand the $$$ in athlete evaluation...even in Women's Hoops, I can't help you there either. Not here to argue. You can have your thoughts and if not open to discussion, that's your choice. Again...don't you think in general SR(or any NCAA DI women's HC) would rather have 2-3 5* level evaluated players every year(thus have 5*'s backing up 5*'s backing up 5*'s)? Again, by definition from most services, the players most ready to take the next step up from High School competition to DI competition immediately are 5* rated athletes. Hence the 5* rating. My thoughts and direction are pretty well laid out. You can have the last word on the subject if you choose. Cheers! Quick review. Ratings only take into account talent as HS players vs HS competition. NOT... the transition to elite competition (practices and games), new system, academic load, adapting to school, new location, etc. Now... for your continued straw man attempts at "discussion": 5* = defintion of ready to play; to... best prepared to make the leap; to... most ready to take the next step up. So in your dictionary is "ready to play" the same as make the leap and next step up? Or... some other "added" discussion mentioned only by you, hence I'm guessing the discussion is one sided? Or again more straw man... 5* more ready than 3* Coaches would rather have 5* Big $ recruiting Etc etc etc Blah blah blah The synopsis of my ORIGINAL post you then quoted... not all that easy to coach a team full of, not only highly talented women, but highly intelligent Furd academic types. For many reasons. Your reply... 5* is the definition of ready to play D1 WBB. So... yeah my bad should have left your initial post alone as more of the same was to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by beavdowg on Jan 4, 2022 11:50:14 GMT -8
rgeorge, you're a tool, man! I don't understand your type. All you care about is "winning" an argument and disparaging the person you're arguing with. It's post after post, topic after topic, day after day. I hope you can somehow find peace in your heart to be a kinder human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Jan 4, 2022 12:10:22 GMT -8
rgeorge, you're a tool, man! I don't understand your type. All you care about is "winning" an argument and disparaging the person you're arguing with. It's post after post, topic after topic, day after day. I hope you can somehow find peace in your heart to be a kinder human being. He may care about winning, but he's doing a poor job of it. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 4, 2022 12:21:05 GMT -8
rgeorge, you're a tool, man! I don't understand your type. All you care about is "winning" an argument and disparaging the person you're arguing with. It's post after post, topic after topic, day after day. I hope you can somehow find peace in your heart to be a kinder human being. Winning vs calling out BS? I'm not sure there's any personal disparaging remark in my post. Certainly not in comparison to his lead sentence. But, as I stated before the straw man BS started. TV has no easier job than SR or any other top flight program. And... without a doubt you tend to really exaggerate! From your angry post I'll take it your last sentence doesn't apply to yourself? Funny how you mimic what you're attempting to accuse someone else of. "Tool" out😉 |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Jan 4, 2022 20:07:13 GMT -8
Not Pac-12, but Michigan got hammered by Nebraska tonight.
Former Oregon player Jazmin Shelley looked really good, though Naz Hillmon looked pretty average.
Shelley and Mikesell have both been far more impressive at Nebraska and Ohio State than they were at Oregon.
|
|
