Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Fairfield Fan, post: 5002877, member: 6911"] The ranking criteria have always been badly flawed. There is no accounting for quality. There is no ranking of the very best players and what they can do for a team. Kateryna Koval, a 6'4" post player, likely the best post in her class, went to Notre Dame. Yet ND's recruiting class isn't ranked. Clearly, Koval has the potential to dramatically improve the prospects for Notre Dame for the next four years. Further, South Carolina gets the third-highest ranking player in the class, Joyce Edwards, a 6'3" power forward. Combined with the team returning for SC next year, she could be instrumental in bringing them a NC. South Carolina only got two players, but the one could be NC-making. Further, there is no attempt to figure in transfers, and that is a glaring failure. In the transfer age, those players can dramatically transform a team. Look at LSU in 2023. So there should be a system in which the #1 player in the class garners a score that is higher than that going to, say, four other players outside of the top 10. A team with, say, three players in the top 10 should be ranked far higher than one with six players ranked from 20 upwards. Connecticut should get a high ranking for Sarah Strong, as well as enhanced rank for the #7 player. And it's absurd that Notre Dame isn't ranked, though it takes the transformative Koval. The rating metrics are so bad and so misleading that ESPN should scrap it, and start again. Or just scrap its ranking altogether. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach