I do think the “ranking systems” are over thought by everyone, including college coaches, who pay thousands every year for the information.While we are on the subject of ratings/rankings might as well talk about this since it comes up every year. Each year there is a vast disparity in rankings or ratings between the services for a few players.
Examples from the past:
2019 Kennedy Brown #20 in ESPN: #100 by Prospectsnation
2018 Tatum Veitenheimer #24 in ProspectsNation: Outside the top 100 for ESPN
2017 Sidney Cooks #5 in ESPN: #69 in ProspectsNation
Diamond Johnson #6 in ESPN: Outside the top 100 in Prospectsnation
What accounts for these seemingly vast discrepancies?
@CamrnCrz1974 and @HuskyNan please chime in based on your past experiences.
- IDK but that won’t stop me from guessing.
- The rating/ranking philosophes e.g. some rating/rankings are based on projected college positions while others lean more towards how they play against current competition.
- AAU politics/affiliation e.g. EYBL (Nike) vs Adidas vs UnderArmour circuits
- Rating services affiliations e.g. (Blue Star=Belles) and ProspectsNation = Check me out show case events
- Timing e.g. one rater saw her play on her best day and the other was there on a not so good day
But for the sake of your discussion I would avoid at all costs using Prospects Nation as the comparison ranking system with ESPN. PN is the least accurate of all the systems. PN will go lengthy periods of time without updating the ranks. PN has a very suspect “pay for tweets” option that likely affects their rankings. Even now PN currently has a 2020 girl in the top 25 who is committed to a D2 school.
I think if you compare the top 50 girls of ESPN, ASGR and Bluestar you will find much less major differences than with PN. I think PN sees far less games than the other rankers and evaluates from their camps far more than the others too. The others don’t seem as affected by not seeing enough games. And ESPN doesn’t really have a “camp” or “club”. This addresses points number 4 & 5 some.
Number 3 in my opinion is a factor that comes into play that is often overlooked. But in my opinion it’s problem is the inability to get “apples to apples” comparisons. For a few UA, Adidas or unaffiliated teams like FBC or Sports City they make a point of playing the Nike teams so coaches and scouts can get better assessments. But a majority of the non-Nike teams do not play the best talent out there. Nike hoards their teams and keeps them from getting much competition against teams outside Nike. I know UA fans would like this to change and hope the new league is changing things but for the last 10 years, including this summer, the talent in Nike EYBL is far better than other leagues. In my opinion the only UA team that could compete with a majority of the Nike teams is FBC. A girl may look amazing at the adidas championships but if she were on half of the Nike teams she would struggle for playing time. For some reason rankers tend to forget this and get caught up in what they see. HVL is best example here. Superstar in Adidas, struggled mightily against Nike completion this summer.
As I’ve mentioned before I believe this happens with USA trials a lot also. Rankers put far too much stock in the results. And once a girl makes the top 15 at USA over one long weekend as a 14 year old she is set for the rest of her prep career, entrenched in the top 25. With 2020s Deja Kelly and Alli Campbell best examples of this. Neither are top 25 players but because of good showings at USA when young they have been up in the ranks ever since.
Number 5 happens a lot of course, there just isn’t enough money and fame in girls basketball to get a ton of saturation by scouts. So a lot falls through the cracks because a scout only saw a player at their best, or at their worst. I have mentioned this before but ESPN seems to chase “flash” more than college potential. This also addresses number 2. Girls like 2019s Jaden Owens or 2020s Sarah Andrews and Diamond Johnson have lofty rankings but will unlikely have tons of success in college. They can look really flashy but it doesn’t work at the next level. 2017 Chasity Patterson perfect example.
Rankers do their best but as mentioned it’s a subjective process that has lots of “opinions” that vary. I would lean a lot towards the less public scouting services (ASGR, Bluestar, PASS) because they rely more heavily on results with college coaches to stay in business.