2026 Recruiting: Sara Okeke | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.-.

2026 Recruiting: Sara Okeke

asuwish said:
Maybe it's me but watching her highlights and that of French player Tournabize I'd take the French kid. Her length and ability to shoot the 3 make incredibly versatile (a Stewie feel). Okeke has very limited range or ball handling skill. Watch the tapes. What skill set would you rather have?
According to Shane Laflin UConn is heavily in on 6-3 Spanish center Sara Okeke. Okeke qualifies for the 2027 WNBA draft so she could skip college altogether.
Expand ...
[/QUOTE]
Tournabize is who I want too. Just can’t get her dunk out of my mind- but she has great other game aspects
 
Last edited:
asuwish said:
Maybe it's me but watching her highlights and that of French player Tournabize I'd take the French kid. Her length and ability to shoot the 3 make incredibly versatile (a Stewie feel). Okeke has very limited range or ball handling skill. Watch the tapes. What skill set would you rather have?
According to Shane Laflin UConn is heavily in on 6-3 Spanish center Sara Okeke. Okeke qualifies for the 2027 WNBA draft so she could skip college altogether.
Expand ...
[/QUOTE] Additional Stats on Alicia Tournabize vs Sara Okeke. This
is from the Semi-Final game of the FIBA U18 Women's EuroBasket
2025 this summer. Spain won 71 -65. Perhaps best would be to what
the WHOLE game on the Fiba website.
Tournabize: 20:37 min, 7 points 3/9, no 3 pointers 1/2 free throws,
8 rebounds, 0 assists, 5 PERSONAL FOULS, 2 T.O., 2 Steals, 3 blocks
Efficiency 11.
Okeke: 28.46 min, 14 points 6/11, no threes, 2/7 free throws,
8 rebounds, 1 assist, 2 p. fouls, FIVE Turnovers, 2 steals, no blocks,
Efficiency 10. So, did Tournabize foul out? Otherwise not much
to choose between these exceptional players. I hope to watch the
full game on You Tube to see what happened in the INDIVIDUAL BATTLE.
P.S. Just finished watching the France vs Spain Semifinal.
Alicia Tournebize fouled at with 54.7 seconds left in the fourth quarter.
In the first half Sara Okeke had the first 7 points of the game and ended
the half with 6/8 shooting and 13 points with 6 rebounds. The announcer
described Tournebize as "Quiet, invisible" in the first half. Neither player
had a great game. Okeke scored over Tournebize with soft hooks, and
with step throughs with ++ foot work. Tournebize was at a strength
disadvantage to Sara. (Note: Tournebize is 194 cm, Okeke is 193 cm). Sara Okeke with numerous examples of poor passes, poor hands, missed foul shots and turnovers. On the converse side Tournabize blocked a Okeke driving layup., NICE!
This game was a good but not deciding separation of these players.
It was noteworthy that for most of the game the defended each other... so
this was a good comparison for anyone wanted to see the difference for them-
selves...... Z
Alicia Tournebize was born 7/21/2007;Sara Okeke was born 11/ 16 2007.
IMHO ... neither is a threat to THE BIG O.!
 
Last edited:
Tournabize is who I want too. Just can’t get her dunk out of my mind- but she has great other game aspects
[/QUOTE]
That was a two-handed dunk against Belgium. But she, Alicia Tournebize
#13 for France at 194 cm / = 6' 4", is somewhat slender and has problems
with "wide bodies" or a more athletic player, e.g. Sara Okeke. ref: watch
the first 5 minutes of the SPAIN vs France FIBA u18 semifinal in
the EUROBasket TOURNAMENT. Sara Okeke scored the first 7 points of
the game for Spain. The announcer called Tournebize: "Quiet, Invisible".
Tournebize also fouled out late in the fourth quarter and did not score in
the game until 7 minutes 20 seconds remained the second quarter. One
problem Sara had a "Bad Hands" day in this game
 
Additional Stats on Alicia Tournabize vs Sara Okeke. This
is from the Semi-Final game of the FIBA U18 Women's EuroBasket
2025 this summer. Spain won 71 -65. Perhaps best would be to what
the WHOLE game on the Fiba website.
Tournabize: 20:37 min, 7 points 3/9, no 3 pointers 1/2 free throws,
8 rebounds, 0 assists, 5 PERSONAL FOULS, 2 T.O., 2 Steals, 3 blocks
Efficiency 11.
Okeke: 28.46 min, 14 points 6/11, no threes, 2/7 free throws,
8 rebounds, 1 assist, 2 p. fouls, FIVE Turnovers, 2 steals, no blocks,
Efficiency 10. So, did Tournabize foul out? Otherwise not much
to choose between these exceptional players. I hope to watch the
full game on You Tube to see what happened in the INDIVIDUAL BATTLE.
P.S. Just finished watching the France vs Spain Semifinal.
Alicia Tournebize fouled at with 54.7 seconds left in the fourth quarter.
In the first half Sara Okeke had the first 7 points of the game and ended
the half with 6/8 shooting and 13 points with 6 rebounds. The announcer
described Tournebize as "Quiet, invisible" in the first half. Neither player
had a great game. Okeke scored over Tournebize with soft hooks, and
with step throughs with ++ foot work. Tournebize was at a strength
disadvantage to Sara. (Note: Tournebize is 194 cm, Okeke is 193 cm). Sara Okeke with numerous examples of poor passes, poor hands, missed foul shots and turnovers. On the converse side Tournabize blocked a Okeke driving layup., NICE!
This game was a good but not deciding separation of these players.
It was noteworthy that for most of the game the defended each other... so
this was a good comparison for anyone wanted to see the difference for them-
selves...... Z
Alicia Tournebize was born 7/21/2007;Sara Okeke was born 11/ 16 2007.
IMHO ... neither is a threat to THE BIG O.!
[/QUOTE]
Tournabize can shoot outside, handle the ball, and versatility would play able to play with Olivia and Sarah Strong. Okeke would be Olivia's back up and clogg the middle. Modern basketball wants spacing and versatility. Now sometimes having an unstoppable big allows you to play inside out but that is less and less the modern game
 
.-.
oldhusky said:
With Sarah of course at the 3!
Expand ...
Yes. I would agree that ultimately you want to get Sarah comfortable in that 3 spot to prepare her for the professional leagues.
 
Sluconn Husky said:
All Star Girls Report just put Okeke at #3 in their updated '26 rankings.


Expand ...

For reference, their previous top 10.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251007_223525_Edge.jpg
    Screenshot_20251007_223525_Edge.jpg
    105.3 KB · Views: 335
.-.
Sluconn Husky said:
Okeke #22 in white:


Expand ...

As Dicky V. would say, 'Are you serious'? I realize there's no competition in this game but the toolbox is full. Two things that jumped out to me are that she runs the floor in transition both ways and beats smalls down the court. And her post fundamentals, catch-turn either way-use both hands understanding, and footwork are college level already. Having her available with Vukosa along with Strong and BQ for 2-3 years wouldn't be fair.
 
BobbyJ said:
As Dicky V. would say, 'Are you serious'? I realize there's no competition in this game but the toolbox is full. Two things that jumped out to me are that she runs the floor in transition both ways and beats smalls down the court. And her post fundamentals, catch-turn either way-use both hands understanding, and footwork are college level already. Having her available with Vukosa along with Strong and BQ for 2-3 years wouldn't be fair.
Expand ...
It would be bad for basketball and isn't that our business?
 
.-.
Sluconn Husky said:
Expand ...

While I dont disagree, I'll note that roster slots have a way of opening up.

Had Muhl & Edwards chosen to take their extra year of eligibility and DeBerry & Bettencourt didn't transfer, there would have been no room for the late signing of Strong and transfer Chen.

And without Q's transfer, no Serah.

The notion of "available scholarships" is somewhat outdated as almost every school has out-transfers. (I feel like Raoul has tracked it, and it ends up being <10 that dont lose players.) And if it's not happening 'naturally' I don't doubt that many/most/all? coaches give a slight nudge to some players.
 
Last edited:
Vowelguy said:
While I dont disagree, I'll note that roster slots have a way of opening up.

Had Muhl & Edwards chose to take their extra year of eligibility and DeBerry & Bettencourt didn't transfer, there would have been no room for the late signing of Strong and transfer Chen.

And without Q's transfer, no Serah.

The notion of "available scholarships" is somewhat outdated as almost every school has out-transfers. (I feel like Raoul has tracked it, and it ends up being <10 that dont lose players.) And if it's not happening 'naturally' I don't doubt that many/most/all? coaches give a slight nudge to some players.
Expand ...
You are right regarding all those points, but I think it still makes sense in most cases to recruit not counting on anyone leaving even though it probably will happen. One reason is that a portal option has considerable value too. If on average you try to fill your 15 spots with HS recruits and then wind up in a typical year with 1 or 2 portal options because of departures, that is close to ideal IMO.

A great player for 4 years has more value than a 1 or two year transfer, but the portal option has more value than a HS recruit that may not crack the rotation, and it has been a great tool for fixing a specific hole in the roster that may not have been anticipated when the season begins.

So far we have been fortunate in that the players we have lost were not significant parts of the rotation anyway, unlike many teams including many contenders. If the target was someone like Sarah, then I might over-recruit anticipating an opening happening, but if it was a prospect in say the 15-30 range of the rankings, I think I would value a portal option more. Players in that range probably don't have more than a 50% chance of cracking the rotation.

Even the next year's recruiting class has to be considered as part of the trade off. An extra recruit this year, vs. a portal addition at the end of the season, vs. one more potential 2027 recruit etc.
 
oldhusky said:
You are right regarding all those points, but I think it still makes sense in most cases to recruit not counting on anyone leaving even though it probably will happen. One reason is that a portal option has considerable value too. If on average you try to fill your 15 spots with HS recruits and then wind up in a typical year with 1 or 2 portal options because of departures, that is close to ideal IMO.

A great player for 4 years has more value than a 1 or two year transfer, but the portal option has more value than a HS recruit that may not crack the rotation, and it has been a great tool for fixing a specific hole in the roster that may not have been anticipated when the season begins.

So far we have been fortunate in that the players we have lost were not significant parts of the rotation anyway, unlike many teams including many contenders. If the target was someone like Sarah, then I might over-recruit anticipating an opening happening, but if it was a prospect in say the 15-30 range of the rankings, I think I would value a portal option more. Players in that range probably don't have more than a 50% chance of cracking the rotation.

Even the next year's recruiting class has to be considered as part of the trade off. An extra recruit this year, vs. a portal addition at the end of the season, vs. one more potential 2027 recruit etc.
Expand ...
I believe the best blend is whatever it takes for Geno and CD to be intrigued for another four years, EVERY year. THAT my friends is what will keep UConn WBB "Bad for Basketball" well into the future.

With the signing of Jovana Popovic to the 2026 UConn Freshman class, I'm thinking hold the last "piece of the puzzle" (last scholarship open for either Sara Okeke or the portal). With Jose now the Coach of Dallas, there is less competition for the European talent, and the UConn alumni may have the red carpet to the Wings as well (if a CBA can be had soon). Jose knows who gave his USF teams fits over the last decade and a half, and he has Geno in his favorites on his smart phone (both get "smarter" when they talk). 😎 🔥 🔥 😍

Go Huskies!!!
 
.-.
oldhusky said:
You are right regarding all those points, but I think it still makes sense in most cases to recruit not counting on anyone leaving even though it probably will happen. One reason is that a portal option has considerable value too. If on average you try to fill your 15 spots with HS recruits and then wind up in a typical year with 1 or 2 portal options because of departures, that is close to ideal IMO.

A great player for 4 years has more value than a 1 or two year transfer, but the portal option has more value than a HS recruit that may not crack the rotation, and it has been a great tool for fixing a specific hole in the roster that may not have been anticipated when the season begins.

So far we have been fortunate in that the players we have lost were not significant parts of the rotation anyway, unlike many teams including many contenders. If the target was someone like Sarah, then I might over-recruit anticipating an opening happening, but if it was a prospect in say the 15-30 range of the rankings, I think I would value a portal option more. Players in that range probably don't have more than a 50% chance of cracking the rotation.

Even the next year's recruiting class has to be considered as part of the trade off. An extra recruit this year, vs. a portal addition at the end of the season, vs. one more potential 2027 recruit etc.
Expand ...
I think you’re slightly missing my point. Did Geno ever tell Strong “we need to cool our recruitment because we are not sure if we will have a scholarship for you?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
252
Guests online
4,776
Total visitors
5,028
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,288
Messages
4,430,339
Members
10,276
Latest member
swede23


p
p
Top Bottom