That's what happens when the gurus are throwing darts at a bunch of names on a board. They want people to think they know the difference between #13 and #22 or #33. And they've actually got people who take them seriously.
Nah, there are many good, knowledgeable and hard working people doing these rankings as @HuskyNan & @CamrnCrz1974 can attest. The issues are mostly on the consumer side (i.e., us) because without written detailed explanations about methodologies of the rankings we assume many things and sometimes THE worst things like bias. Take the post above as an example & @Essexdave I'm not picking on your post just using it to illustrate an example of what I'm talking about. In the example Hailey Van Lith position got changed and she moved down in the class. Unless you understand the rating philosophy it is hard to make sense of it because Hailey Van Lith has played relatively well and probably didn't deserve to move down.
I'd buy what you say if I didn't go look at the ratings. These players are seen at most twice a year at AAU events. Without saying anything about the players, since I have not seen any of them, I noticed that 8 of the top 10 were at the Boo Williams in April. The 2 that weren't were Bueckers and No 10 Kapinas. Now I have read some great things about Kapinas but how can she be assigned No 10 when she hasn't been seen in a year and that was the only time in her life she was evaluated by ESPN. How confident is Olson in that ranking?
Hey you get what you pay for and I paid nothing.
I certainly respect your opinions on this. I don't doubt that these are good, hard working people and I have no reason to believe they are biased. I looked at the 2014 class because their college careers have played out and checked three that have a UConn connection. There were 21 5stars with 98 grades, 20 5stars with 97 grades and even the eleven 96 grades were 5stars. That's 52 kids at basically the same ability level at 5 different positions. And they're telling me they can tell the difference between #15 and #52? If it's just for conversation, fine, but they try to justify them with these flowery evaluations that in many cases just don't translate to the college level. The 3 I checked had these descriptions: Gabby W. was the #2 combo guard. She never became a combo guard and still isn't. Plus she never " elevated on mid range game to the arc." She didn't even shoot from there. Nurse: "speed with ball in the uptempo game" and " one on one creator with quick first step." Stevens: "guard skills in transition" and " handles and attacks." What? I didn't see any of this in college. If someone who is knowledgeable, say like you, tells me a kid is superb or electric that's what I expect to see. IMO, beyond maybe the top 3 kids at each position, the rest are just good players. And some of those top 3's don't really pan out. So if the point is to just create content for a website that's fine but I don't need the writer to tell me it took expert analysis to determine the difference between #15 and #52. Always enjoy your input Coco.
I think you need to get a life. They are only opinions man.
I'm still waiting for you to give us some more good news. Who do you think we will get first: Reese, Edwards, or Guster? I think the chance of getting all three is a long-shot but Geno amazes me all the time.
Didn’t Gusters say an announcement is coming a few weeks back? Wondering what the delay is
Was unaware. Heard our coaches started following gusters not too long ago so who knows
Haha
Yea way behind him! I bet he'll never sign another number 1 ranked recruit.
I’ve tried following Daniels’ recruiting closely, and I think I’ve found a grand total of like 4 things.
Has she definitely been offered?
