help please

[Storrsbred]

Several days ago a boneyarder posted something regarding historical ranking of recruiting classes, where UConn showed out in 14th place over the last 10 years or so. I can't remember who or what thread it was in. Will someone point me in the right direction please?

 

[Storrsbred]

Never mind, found it.

 

[rockyno1]

I would like to see it. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[CocoHusky]

Several days ago a boneyarder posted something regarding historical ranking of recruiting classes, where UConn showed out in 14th place over the last 10 years or so. I can't remember who or what thread it was in. Will someone point me in the right direction please?

UCONN WBB? 14th place in recruiting in the last 10 years! I would be very suspicious of any ranking that did not have UCONN WCBB as #1. 14th Is unfathomable! Please repost.

 

[Nuyoika]

Seriously... don't leave us hanging.

 

[Wally East]

The post in question. I wondered about it, too.

 

[Icebear]

It was pinotbear and his basis of calculating was simple and accurate as a description of the rankings in recruiting. Recruiting rankings are not the best metrics for the future success of recruits. I trust the UCONN staff vastly more than Mike Flynn or any other service.

 

[pinotbear]

that graph was very incomplete, as I was editing the post, and it timed out. UConn isn't 14th for the last 8 years, just for the class of 2016.

My overall motivation was to see if the knee-jerk "UConn gets all the best kids" holds water. And, As Icebear alludes to, it's a crude measurement, because class rankings have a "quantity" of recruits factor, rather than merely quality, and there's no way to factor team chemistry, personality, etc.

But, the crude method of looking at ESPN top-1o class rankings for the last eight years would indicate that UConn has had top-1o classes 2 out of the last 4 years, and 5 years out of 8. Duke had top-10 classes for 6 consecutive years. Baylor, Notre Dame, Stanford, Maryland, North Carolina, Louisville, Texas A&M .. and, I can't recall the 9th school - have all had at least 3 top-10 classes over this time frame, and some as many as UConn's 5.

And, again, it's a crude measurement, and it's not saying that UConn isn't one of the best, if not the best, at recruiting. It's just to show that there are more than a few other schools who also recruit extremely well - and a couple who ought to at least be in the conversation for "top recruiter". The "recruiting gap", if it exists significantly at all, does not explain the performance gap on the court that has Danny-boy and his ilk all in a hissy. There's more to it than merely recruiting well (and staying healthy)

 

[RockyMTblue2]

538 had an article that statistically attacked the myth, but I can't find it on their site. Perhaps it was a segment of an ESPN article.

 

[pinotbear]

I'm an actuary's son, so, when I see blanket statements, I tend to want to test them, quantitatively. On another thread, I did a "quick and dirty" numerical look at the belief that UConn stars and starters play fewer minutes than their peers. In this case, I just wanted to do a "quick and dirty" at the "all the good kids go to UConn" argument. Not a thesis-level look, more like a "trading baseball cards with your buddies in 6th grade" sort of look. But, enough of a look to at least raise doubts about "Geno gets all the talent".

 

[CocoHusky]

Still not buying it that UCONN has 14th best class in 2016-Not when UCONN has best Guard in the class and top 3 player.
Somewhere in the thread about coach JPM at Duke there is pretty good breakdown about the number of McDonalds AA by school may have been prepared by CamrnCrz1974. This may be a better way of showing what you are trying to convey.

 

[CocoHusky]

Mystery solved
ESPN does indeed rank UCONN 14th for class of 2016.
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/class-rankings?class=2016
I still don't agree with this. This doesn't support the argument either because this class has yet to play a game.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Stumbled into that 538 article. Year old but still makes its point. UConn does not dominate recruiting as it has been portrayed, but is the head of the pack.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/womens-college-basketball-is-better-than-mens/

Fascinating study and bottom line:

The irony is that the lack of upsets in the women’s tourney is frequently cited as a sign of the sport’s immaturity or inferior talent. But the chalk likely results from the opposite: The women’s game is the more mature of the two.

No doubt, the women’s tournament has a very different character than the men’s — and I don’t just mean the scarcity of dunks. Big upsets are extremely rare, and teams perform relatively closer to their expectations. But you don’t tune in to witness madness; you tune in to witness greatness.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Actually, by the metric 538 considers the best 2 womens teams are better recruiters. Guess who: Duke and Tennessee

SCHOOL SEX 1K 10K 50K
Kentucky M 18 13 3
Duke M 14 6 3
Kansas M 11 5 2
Texas M 11 3 1
UCLA M 10 3 1
Baylor M 7 2 1
Duke W 14 6 1
Tennessee W 12 6 1
Connecticut W 11 4 3
Notre Dame W 10 3 1
South Carolina W 10 2 1

 

[UcMiami]

The thing with recruiting is with a team that goes 7 or 8 deep in the 'starters' and 'rotation bench' players and a coaching staff does a good job of identifying good players for their system and developing them, you need to average an alternating 2 starter class with a one starter and one rotation player class and fill in with a few supporting players. That 2/1/2/1/2 pattern of starters gets you an experienced starting five with a freshman or two learning the trade, and the 1/0/1/0 pattern gets you a rotational player like a Kiah every other year.
So when ratings quantify a five player class of moderate talent over a class of two top 20 kids it really is saying cannon fodder is more important that starters or scatter shot recruiting maybe gives a chance to find gems that selective recruiting misses.
Add in really elite players like Griner or Stewart who are beyond category and whose numerical #1 ranking undersells there quality and it is even less valid.

Uconn's record of succeeding with those beyond category recruits (and of developing them to their full potential) is remarkable. since 2000 - DT, Maya, Breanna (and EDD even if she did leave.) I don't think any other program has more than one - Paris, Parker, and Griner.
The record with standard #1 quality players is also pretty good - Moriah, Samuelson, Tina, KML
And the record of high quality top ten that develop - the Morgan, Collier type of players.
And the hidden gems - Dolson and Faris types.

We don't monopolize recruiting as people say, but we get a heck of a lot of really top quality recruits, and we are pretty good at selecting really good complementary and hidden quality recruits too. And more importantly we do not overcrowd the team to the point that the coaching is stretched too thin, the players get squeezed out of development, or the chemistry gets strained.

There are probably some other beyond category recruits that never got the coaching or suffered injuries or ...., and their are definitely a lot of really good recruits that fail to live up to their potential for whatever reason as well.

What impresses me with the FF field is you look at them from a recruit ranking perspective and they have all massively over achieved and it is because of their coaching. And I am including Uconn in that statement - 120-1 with no MOV less than 10 is overachievement.
You look back at recent history and you can say ND, Stanford, and a few others consistently over achieve as well. And we can all name some of the places that massively underachieve.

 

[alexrgct]

Recruiting is largely about getting the fabled "six star" game-changers rather than worrying about quantity of five-stars. Diana Taurasi, Maya Moore, and Breanna Stewart, were six-stars. So was Brittney Griner. Tina Charles was between five and six stars, as was KML, Nykesha Sales, and (probably) Katie Lou. Lobo probably was there as weell, but different arguments could be made as to which star rating (five or six) she was closer to.

My point is that I will take a six-star in a heartbeat over three five-stars. When we have the chance to have D, Stewie, or Maya, and you don't, we have the chance to have the kind of program we've mostly had to this point since 1995. That is the core of success (or failure) in recruiting.

Player evaluation and development are equally important components. we want to have a Stef Dolson, a Kara Wolters, a Jen Rizzotti, a Kelly Faris, or a Jamelle Elliott. I'd rather have had Kelly than a five-star recruit, for instance.

I'm not saying recruiting rankings don't matter, but I am saying they're misguided. I don't need to argue that UConn should be better than 14th in recruiting; I can just cite the five NCs in seven years and sleep readily at nights.