It is always a challenge to rate recruiting classes. When evaluating a class, the reviewers ignore positional need, but of course the coaches cannot. But I don't expect the reviewers to include that level of detail in their analysis, nor should they. But I still believe that they value quantity over quality. Here are the recruiting classes based on Hoopgurlz rating, since that is the rating from their website:
- Maryland: 5, 18, 30, 49
- Ohio State: 6, 24, 39, 41
- Stanford: 15, 23, 50
- Michigan State: 57, 70, 84, 93, another 4 star
- South Carolina: 7, 13, a 3-star
- USC: 36, 40, 63, a 3-star (added Rogers #35, but she was not included in this analysis)
- NC State: 17, 32, two 3-stars
- Tennessee: 2, 46, a 3-star
- UCLA: 14, 22 two 3-stars
- Notre Dame: 4, 21
- Missouri: 8, 29, a 3-star
- Duke: 58, 65, 81
- Georgia: 28, 38, a 3-star
- Louisville: 12, 99, a 3-star
- Florida State: 27, 37, a 3-star
- Oregon State: 19, 42
- Penn State: 59, 61, two 3-stars
- Indiana: 52, 53, two 3-stars
- Miss. State: 88, 98, two 3-stars
- LSU: 26, 71
A couple of questions:
Are NC State's pair of 3-star recruits really that much better than UCLA's two 3-star recruits?
If Notre Dame recruited a student athlete that was rated 60th, would they vault ahead of Stanford into 3rd place?
Is Florida State's class really worse than Duke's?