My short response: You just put words in her mouth, and then called her "clueless." That's not how it's usually supposed to work.
My longer response:
You said: "I agree that there might be parity... but it ain't gonna' be because players are learning the game from instagram."
Chiney didn't say that. What Chiney predicted was, simply, that more of the top players will be staying close to home:
"I just feel like the top players are staying home, top players are going to different schools... UConn would get the top five or six of the top five or six... UConn will still get amazing talent, but the talent is definitely going to disperse.”
Who knows if it plays out this way in the coming years, but it's a very simple statement and it is not at all the same thing that you said. It is the article's author who put the word "parity" in the title and then went on to cite some data that suggests that more top players may in fact be staying closer to home of late. (I happen to think UCONN will be fine in the recruiting wars going forward, FWIW.) Chiney's talk about the dispersion of talent and her opinion that UCONN won't get so many top players is, in the author's way of thinking, akin to saying there will be "parity" in WCBB. That's not exactly same thing, but it's a pretty reasonable, and pretty small, logical step to make.
As you point out, Chiney also says that she feels players are better able to develop their skills today because of technology (YouTube, Instagram) and that they don't have to go to a top school to get 'that instruction.' (More importantly, she makes it sound as though this is not an uncommon idea among today's high school age kids.) In a narrow sense, she is certainly correct. There's a lot more stuff out there that kids can learn on their own. In a broader sense, I would agree (most would) that that's only a small part of what you can get from good coaching and a very small part of what you can get from a top program and top coaching. Which is is what really got your goat.
But nowhere does Chiney: (1) even use the word "parity", or (2) say or imply that parity will be brought about because of kids using YouTube, Instagram, etc. and upping their games that way, without coaching. Her opinions re: YouTube, Instagram and kids "wanting to develop their own brand and make their own story" are support for her contention that more of them will be choosing to "stay home." This is where the (implied) greater parity comes from(!), by implication from the article's author.
