October UConn Recruiting Thread

[BobbyJ]

Aren't all ratings subjective though? It's not like women's basketball is the only sport that does this. Been a staple of football and men's basketball, and is basically the same method used to rank prospects for baseball and hockey drafts.

Oh yes I agree there’s a lot of subjectivity in all of them. I’d say the skill sets and methods for rating them in the other sports may differ from HS girls BB so I wouldn’t compare them. But from my years of experience with girls BB I just question the judgment of some of these raters. They’re entitled to their opinions but to me they’re just not expert ones and that’s fine. And that’s why the coaches get out and form their own and IMO don’t pay much attention to these ratings. But good for them if they can make some money off them.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

And that’s why the coaches get out and form their own and IMO don’t pay much attention to these ratings. But good for them if they can make some money off them.

I don't know how much coaches pay attention to the ratings, but it could be noted that nearly all the players UConn is known to be in on in future classes are top-30 on these lists. You'll occasionally get a Piath Gabriel or Kyla Irwin who are off the lists or deep in them, but for the most part players who are on these lists all get recruited by the major D-1 programs. IOW, I don't think the opinions of the recruiting outlets and the coaches vary all that much.

 

[CocoHusky]

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?

1. IDK but that won’t stop me from guessing.
2. 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.
3. AAU politics/affiliation e.g. EYBL (Nike) vs Adidas vs UnderArmour circuits
4. Rating services affiliations e.g. (Blue Star=Belles) and ProspectsNation = Check me out show case events
5. Timing e.g. one rater saw her play on her best day and the other was there on a not so good day

@CamrnCrz1974 and @HuskyNan please chime in based on your past experiences.

 

[DaBball]

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?

1. IDK but that won’t stop me from guessing.
2. 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.
3. AAU politics/affiliation e.g. EYBL (Nike) vs Adidas vs UnderArmour circuits
4. Rating services affiliations e.g. (Blue Star=Belles) and ProspectsNation = Check me out show case events
5. Timing e.g. one rater saw her play on her best day and the other was there on a not so good day

@CamrnCrz1974 and @HuskyNan please chime in based on your past experiences.

— Aubrey Griffin #21 in ESPN; #90 in Prospects Nation
— DeYona’ Gaston #95 in ESPN; #18 in ProspectsNation

I don’t think ProspectsNation had updated their 2019 list in a ridiculously long time, so there are some names that were once very high on both lists, but fell drastically on HoopGurlz, and PN never adjusted.

 

[eebmg]

Aubrey Griffin #21 in ESPN; #90 in Prospects Nation
DeYona’ Gaston #95 in ESPN; #18 in ProspectsNation

I guess they try copying each other but suffer from Dyslexia.

 

[BobbyJ]

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?

1. IDK but that won’t stop me from guessing.
2. 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.
3. AAU politics/affiliation e.g. EYBL (Nike) vs Adidas vs UnderArmour circuits
4. Rating services affiliations e.g. (Blue Star=Belles) and ProspectsNation = Check me out show case events
5. Timing e.g. one rater saw her play on her best day and the other was there on a not so good day

@CamrnCrz1974 and @HuskyNan please chime in based on your past experiences.

Very good question. IMO #3 and #4 must have a big impact. This summer’s World Cup tourney was an example of my skepticism. Bueckers and Clark are both 98 grade 5 stars according to ESPN. Against the same competition, Bueckers controls the game and Clark has no impact. How can they be equal? Brink can’t get off the bench except for mop up time and is out of her element and she’s the highest rated F with a 98 grade and a 5 star? Why do they jam these grades so closely? If Bueckers is an undisputed 5 star, which I believe she is, then the other two are not. It’s not that complicated to me.

 

[Bama fan]

I guess they try copying each other but suffer from Dyslexia.

When the problem is with numbers, it is referred to as dyscalculia. But that would be a tough one if you were dyslexic.

 

[eebmg]

When the problem is with numbers, it is referred to as dyscalculia. But that would be a tough one if you were dyslexic.

What a great factoid. But looks like Dracula to me.

 

[Bama fan]

What a great factoid. But looks like Dracula to me.

You may have dyslexia! BTW, factoid is an awful sounding word. And you should avoid Transylvania in the future. I mean, you would not be able to read the signs, eh!

 

[Alydar]

Very good question. IMO #3 and #4 must have a big impact. This summer’s World Cup tourney was an example of my skepticism. Bueckers and Clark are both 98 grade 5 stars according to ESPN. Against the same competition, Bueckers controls the game and Clark has no impact. How can they be equal? Brink can’t get off the bench except for mop up time and is out of her element and she’s the highest rated F with a 98 grade and a 5 star? Why do they jam these grades so closely? If Bueckers is an undisputed 5 star, which I believe she is, then the other two are not. It’s not that complicated to me.

It's similar to team rankings. Teams are neatly spaced out as 1,2,3,4.... when if you looked at the actual figures you'd see that UConn in several years was 1 and there was no one at 2,3 or 4. The gap between UConn and the next team was sometimes 4 times the gap between 2 & 3. And if the actual numbers were plotted on a graph the line formed would look like a steep ski jump, very steep at the top and flattened out near the bottom.

 

[Alydar]

It's rare that a freshman at UConn looks like the best player on the court. I can only think of 3. And I think we have a 4th.
For all those filled with angst over recruiting I can assure you that whomever lands Cardoso, DeBerry, and any other post will be most willing to trade them to UConn for Bueckers.
I worked with an Italian who used the English translation of many Italian colloquialisms. Since it was a gambling parlor the complaints were constant and often came from winners who felt they should have won more. When it was someone he knew he would say "You are crying hunger with a loaf of bread under your arm".

UConn has hit the basketball version of a Power Ball jackpot and some are complaining that they missed the daily number. Those who need overwhelming superiority (3-4 posts 6'3"-6'7" & the 3 top guards in the country) to feel confident must be miserable most years.

 

[CocoHusky]

It's rare that a freshman at UConn looks like the best player on the court. I can only think of 3. And I think we have a 4th.
For all those filled with angst over recruiting I can assure you that whomever lands Cardoso, DeBerry, and any other post will be most willing to trade them to UConn for Bueckers.
I worked with an Italian who used the English translation of many Italian colloquialisms. Since it was a gambling parlor the complaints were constant and often came from winners who felt they should have won more. When it was someone he knew he would say "You are crying hunger with a loaf of bread under your arm".
UConn has hit the basketball version of a Power Ball jackpot and some are complaining that they missed the daily number. Those who need overwhelming superiority (3-4 posts 6'3"-6'7" & the 3 top guards in the country) to feel confident must be miserable most years.

I can definitely relate to that quote and perhaps you can relate to this one:

"It takes two to make a thing go right"
----MC Rob Base and DJ E-Z Rock

Paige has the potential to be tremendous talent but the idea of trading her for a post player is a very weak premise. It takes both ingredients (post & guard play) to win championships. In the UCONN championship seasons more often than not the norm has been AA capable play from MULTIPLE UCONN post players.

1995-Lobo & Wolters
2000- Asjha Jones, Tamika Williams, Kelly Schumacher
2001-Tamika Williams, Swin Cash, Asjha Jones
2002 Willnett Crockett, Barbara Turner, Jessica Moore
2003 Willnett Crockett, Barbara Turner, Jessica Moore
2009 Maya, Tina,
2010 Maya, Tina
2013 Tuck, Dolson, Stewie
2014 Tuck, Dolson, Stewie
2015 Tuck, Stewie
2016 Tuck, Stewie

Notice I said "capable of AA play" and intentionally included Kelly Schumacher on the list of player. Schumacher averaged 5.5 PPG for her UCONN career. ONO like Paige also has shown great potential, but IMO she will need a sidekick/backup in the post. Could Paith be that side kick? She may have to be.

 

[Alydar]

2001-Tamika Williams, Swin Cash, Asjha Jones
2002 Willnett Crockett, Barbara Turner, Jessica Moore
2003 Willnett Crockett, Barbara Turner, Jessica Moore

Williams - 6'2"
Cash - 6'1"
Jones - 6'2
Crockett - 6'2"
Turner - 6' 0"
Moore - 6'3"

Here is UConn's "BIGS" over a 4 year span(01-04) . Kind of says that size is nice but is in no way a necessity in winning a title.
It sure is nice to have a couple of beasts in the paint but it is hardly a requirement.
And I don't want to hear about it being a different era. These teams followed both Walters (6'7") and Schumacher (6'6"?)

It is clear that after winning 2 titles in 6 years with towers in the post UConn downsized and won 3 of the next 4 with the six above named players sharing the post duties. And it was Turner, listed as a G/F, who was the best rebounder in the group at 6' even.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

What accounts for these seemingly vast discrepancies?

1. IDK but that won’t stop me from guessing.
2. 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.
3. AAU politics/affiliation e.g. EYBL (Nike) vs Adidas vs UnderArmour circuits
4. Rating services affiliations e.g. (Blue Star=Belles) and ProspectsNation = Check me out show case events
5. Timing e.g. one rater saw her play on her best day and the other was there on a not so good day

@CamrnCrz1974 and @HuskyNan please chime in based on your past experiences.

@CocoHusky , I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

Earlier this year, I posted a few times in a thread about recruiting services and the factors that go into their rankings (and had a discussion with @WBBfolllwer about the topic). Here are the links to those posts (with apologies, as the posts are extremely long and detailed:

2020/21 UConn Recruiting

New Bluestar rankings

Here is a summary of these posts and my thoughts on the matter:

--- Certain recruiting services taken into account “projected collegiate performance” or “projected development” when evaluating players. Others rank the players were they are as of the dates of the players’ respective evaluations.

--- It impossible to predict how well a player will develop under and perform for one head coach, as opposed to how she might do so under a different coach.

--- Rankings inevitably vary based on player performance, number of times seen/evaluated by the recruiter, whether evaluations were with the high school team at major tournaments (including state championships) or AAU events, etc.

--- Certain recruiting services may also consider certain factors in ranking players that other services do not include (e.g., a player's on-court demeanor, ability to be coached, interactions with teammates, etc.).

--- A few years ago, I commented about sneaker companies and two recruiting services.

• Blue Star is based in the Northeast, is sponsored by Nike, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the old Big East. Blue Star's rankings were (and still are) handled by Mike Flynn, who tended to bump up the rankings for players from the Northeast, players who attended Nike camps, and/or players who give verbal commitments to one of the old Big East schools.
• ASGR is based in the Southeast, is sponsored by adidas, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the ACC. ASGR’s rankings were handled by Mike White (White now works with Bret McCormick and others), who tended to bump the rankings for players who gave verbal commitments to ACC schools.

In any event, because there is not nearly as much money in women’s basketball recruiting as there is in men’s recruiting, players are not seen as frequently (or against other similar levels of competition) as their male counterparts. As a result, there may be some disparity in rankings from one service to another, especially if a player had subpar performances in the games that one evaluator saw, but was stellar in front of other raters.

All recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players. What I do not like, however, is when a few people go back to disparate a high school ranking many years later and using a player’s college performance as support for their positions. Evaluations are largely based on present performances, with subjective analysis component (and in some cases, factoring in upside/potential). But the evaluators are not supposed to be The Amazing Kreskin; they cannot make predictions the future as to how a player may develop years into the future (based on evaluations that largely occurred before players’ senior seasons).

Now, if a player comes to college (or even the summer before, with USA Basketball) and dominates from the first game and is giving immediate All-Conference and All-American performances, then a recruiting service's player ranking might have been too low (e.g., Blue Star Report and Alana Beard). But going back after four years of college and claiming that a ranking was somehow “wrong”, in my opinion, misses the point of recruiting rankings and the dozens of factors involved with a player’s collegiate development.

Finally, I believe @HuskyNan can shed light on the years she was part of a team of evaluators for Scout (2006 for sure; not sure about other years), in terms of how talent evaluators/assessors consider some of these things. As I recall, Epiphanny Prince was widely regarded as a very talented and elite recruit with a good amount of upside, but received a slightly lower ranking/rating (#10 overall) from that Scout rating team, as a result of things like on-court attitude, ability to play team basketball, interactions with teammates/coaches, etc.


@ucbart
@EricLA
@triaddukefan
@vowelguy

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Adamec piece on Paige Bueckers' upcoming activities:

The Bristol Press - UConn Class of 2020 commit Bueckers to play on USA team with Collier in Qatar

Paige Bueckers is looking forward to her official visit to the University of Connecticut that begins...

www.bristolpress.com

 

[Lwrc]

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?

1. IDK but that won’t stop me from guessing.
2. 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.
3. AAU politics/affiliation e.g. EYBL (Nike) vs Adidas vs UnderArmour circuits
4. Rating services affiliations e.g. (Blue Star=Belles) and ProspectsNation = Check me out show case events
5. Timing e.g. one rater saw her play on her best day and the other was there on a not so good day

@CamrnCrz1974 and @HuskyNan please chime in based on your past experiences.

I do think the “ranking systems” are over thought by everyone, including college coaches, who pay thousands every year for the information.

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. Hailey Van Lith 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.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

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.

The player you are referring to--Keegan Sullivan--is ranked 55th at Blue Star. Not really all that far off of PN's ranking. Also, Sullivan is ranked 115th at ASGR, a still high ranking for a player committed to D-2. For comparison, ASGR has Piath Gabriel 107th. Which one is more extreme considering their destinations?

 

[CocoHusky]

I do think the “ranking systems” are over thought by everyone, including college coaches, who pay thousands every year for the information.

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. Hailey Van Lith 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.

Great points all around & thanks. Minor points of disagreement which you and I have covered before so in the interest of advancing the discussion would like to reintroduce two terms. Composite and Consensus. @vowelguy used to do a composite ranking which took into account multiple services ratings. Over the years I tried to shame him into reintroducing it but have been unsuccess-so far.
Rarely do all the services agree on the #1 player in a class. Stewie might have been the last consensus #1.
When consensus is achieved greatness usually follows. BTW Azzi Fudd has achieved consensus #1 but Paige has not. I'm also among the people who refuse to pay for these service rankings & ratings. I fully realize that the paid for information is far different and perhaps better than the free information.

 

[Dillon77]

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.

Overall, I found your post on rankings interesting, particularly your points into the competition aspects of various circuits.

I get the gist of what you're trying to point out in this particular paragraph and could buy it if your'e talking about a particular regional tournament or one in the various circuits.

But national tryouts tend to bring everyone together from all over. And while it's one weekend or week, they're still going against more level competition than you might see during the summer tournaments. Plus:
- A lof the same players tend to come back year after year. That's for a reason.
- A number of the same rankers/writers also are there year after year. I look forward to reading Mark Lewis evaluations not just for the moment, but because he'll look for growth, development in each player.

In regards to the two players you cite: Alli Campbell, based on the information that USA Basketball produced made the Finals for the first time trying out for the stellar U17 team of 2018. Here's a quote from the release:
"Newcomers named as finalists include: Alli Campbell (Bellwood-Antis H.S./Altoona, Pa.); Aubrey Griffin (Ossining H.S./Ossining, N.Y.); and Hannah Gusters (Duncanville H.S./DeSoto, Texas)."

Finalists Named for 2018 USA U17 World Cup Team

Following four days of skills and trials sessions, which began with 158 athletes on May 24, 18 finalists were selected for the 2018 USA Basketball Women’s U17 World Cup Team on May 28.

www.usab.com

Based on her becoming a finalist, Campbell had a bio written about her and posted:

Allison Campbell

www.usab.com

You'll see no other mention of her making a finalist list, so this was her first and only time doing so and it was just in 2018.

I've followed Campell's career since she was one of the relatively unknown partcipants who attend Notre Dame's mass recruiting weekend back in 2017 ("Recruitapalooza"). Since then, she's grown three to four inches, led her high school team to two consecuitve Pa. State Titles, been invited to join the Philly Belles and then atttended the trials in 2018. So I'd suggest, with Campbell at least, the linear progression is moving up to her current ratings, which I believe at current #20 HG and 26 PN.

As for Deja Kelly, I couldn't find a biography written about her on U.S.A. Basketball or any mention of her becoming a finalist. Yes, I have been adjusting her HG rankings upwards -- she's currently #17 -- but that has happened recently as seems more based on what Olson has seen in the last year or so (AAU seasons, HS season in Texas).

 

[meyers7]

Great points all around & thanks. Minor points of disagreement which you and I have covered before so in the interest of advancing the discussion would like to reintroduce two terms. Composite and Consensus. @vowelguy used to do a composite ranking which took into account multiple services ratings. Over the years I tried to shame him into reintroducing it but have been unsuccess-so far.
Rarely do all the services agree on the #1 player in a class. Stewie might have been the last consensus #1.
When consensus is achieved greatness usually follows. BTW Azzi Fudd has achieved consensus #1 but Paige has not. I'm also among the people who refuse to pay for these service rankings & ratings. I fully realize that the paid for information is far different and perhaps better than the free information.

I've been doing that for the last few years. At least with the rankings I can find. (can't always find ASGR) But with Bluestar, PN, Hoopgurlz and if possible ASGR you can get a pretty good composite/consensus. And I only go with the Top 100 (sometimes Top 70 for Bluestar - depending on how many they list). After 100, I don't really care.

For 2019 it was

1. Haley Jones
2. Jordan Horston
3. Aliyah Boston
4. Ashley Owusu
5. Rickea Jackson
6. Samantha Brunelle
7. Zia Cooke
8. Nyah Green
9. Kiesten Bell
10. Breanna Beal

for the top 10. Griffin was a composite #33.

For 2020 so far (all 4)

1. Paige Bueckers
2. Kamila Cordosa (za)
3. Angel Reese
4. Hailey Van Lith
5. Cameron Brink
6. Caitlin Clark
7. Sarah Andrews
8. Hanna Gusters
9. Sasha Goforth
10. Sydney Parrish

McLean is #18. Gabriel is ranked outside 100. Muhl isn't ranked by any of them, but usually only a few Canadians might get ranked by some of them.

 

[Lwrc]

Overall, I found your post on rankings interesting, particularly your points into the competition aspects of various circuits.

I get the gist of what you're trying to point out in this particular paragraph and could buy it if your'e talking about a particular regional tournament or one in the various circuits.

But national tryouts tend to bring everyone together from all over. And while it's one weekend or week, they're still going against more level competition than you might see during the summer tournaments. Plus:
- A lof the same players tend to come back year after year. That's for a reason.
- A number of the same rankers/writers also are there year after year. I look forward to reading Mark Lewis evaluations not just for the moment, but because he'll look for growth, development in each player.

In regards to the two players you cite: Alli Campbell, based on the information that USA Basketball produced made the Finals for the first time trying out for the stellar U17 team of 2018. Here's a quote from the release:
"Newcomers named as finalists include: Alli Campbell (Bellwood-Antis H.S./Altoona, Pa.); Aubrey Griffin (Ossining H.S./Ossining, N.Y.); and Hannah Gusters (Duncanville H.S./DeSoto, Texas)."

Finalists Named for 2018 USA U17 World Cup Team

Following four days of skills and trials sessions, which began with 158 athletes on May 24, 18 finalists were selected for the 2018 USA Basketball Women’s U17 World Cup Team on May 28.

www.usab.com

Based on her becoming a finalist, Campbell had a bio written about her and posted:

Allison Campbell

www.usab.com

You'll see no other mention of her making a finalist list, so this was her first and only time doing so and it was just in 2018.

I've followed Campell's career since she was one of the relatively unknown partcipants who attend Notre Dame's mass recruiting weekend back in 2017 ("Recruitapalooza"). Since then, she's grown three to four inches, led her high school team to two consecuitve Pa. State Titles, been invited to join the Philly Belles and then atttended the trials in 2018. So I'd suggest, with Campbell at least, the linear progression is moving up to her current ratings, which I believe at current #20 HG and 26 PN.

As for Deja Kelly, I couldn't find a biography written about her on U.S.A. Basketball or any mention of her becoming a finalist. Yes, I have been adjusting her HG rankings upwards -- she's currently #17 -- but that has happened recently as seems more based on what Olson has seen in the last year or so (AAU seasons, HS season in Texas).

Fair points. Couple thoughts to interject.

Having watched 4 USA trials now, I do not think they do a good job of evaluating the talent. There are basically too many girls for the short period. The original 25 that get the “personal invite” are shoe ins unless they stumble badly and the other 125 players have to do something super unique or special to have even a slight chance of making it through the cuts. See Angel Reese as best example.

Alli is a fine player but she is not a top 30 player in 2020. On her average Philly Belles team this summer she was not a factor and her playing time reflected that. In my opinion if she had not made the top cut at USA she would not be in anyone’s top 40 even now. This comes mostly from observations this summer and last. High school ball means very little. She’s been steadily dropping in ESPN since USA, she is currently #25. ASGR has her at #27. Bluestar is higher, #17, but she is a Belle .

Deja was a part of the first set of personal invites that USA sent out that included 2020s. She made it far in the cuts because of that, but didn’t make the team. Her college options she’s considering currently reflect her true level of talent. Ultimately college coaches opinions speak volumes.

 

[Lwrc]

The player you are referring to--Keegan Sullivan--is ranked 55th at Blue Star. Not really all that far off of PN's ranking. Also, Sullivan is ranked 115th at ASGR, a still high ranking for a player committed to D-2. For comparison, ASGR has Piath Gabriel 107th. Which one is more extreme considering their destinations?

Gabriel is somewhat surprising but I see some main differences. The most obvious being that she is a big. And the premium on any girl that is 6’5” and can move her feet is high. Also most bigger girls take longer to develop so a girl like Gabriel, who knows, with Geno could be the next Megan Gustafson. Also Gabriel is just starting to get recognized and noticed. I think Geno found a diamond in the rough with her.

Sullivan is a regular old guard who isn’t even considered a top player in her own state. She is well connected to PN and for some reason was ranked by them out of place. Not saying she’s not a good player, but not top 50.

 

[Alydar]

....... paid for information is far different and perhaps better than the free information.

That's the point. You get what you pay for. The only people who read those rankings are parents and fans. And that's why not much effort is put into them. Like someone said, these services spend much more time doing in-depth ratings for college coaches who pay and also for parents who pay to get their daughters evaluated.

 

[DaBball]

It's not like Sullivan didn't have any Division 1 offers -- she was more focused on finding the perfect fit for her, and she found that at Rockhurst University.

Vivian Gray is a terrific example -- she had multiple Division 1 offers -- yet she chose to go to Fort Lewis and play D2 with her sister. She averaged 18.5 PPG at the D2 level, decided to come to the D1 level and upped her average to 20.0 PPG in a Power 5 conference. I don't think anyone would argue she isn't a top-50 talent just because she chose a Division 2 school.

Sullivan is clearly a Division 1 talent, as evidenced by her multiple offers. I haven't seen her enough to state whether or not she is top-25, 50, 100, 150, or so on, but evidenced by the fact that 3/4 of the recruiting sites have her as a top-125 recruits typically means that is where she lies at the current moment. @skinshoops86 on twitter who I find to be very knowledgeable felt that Keegan was a top-60 player in the class as well. Dawn Staley clearly saw something there as well to have offered her a scholarship in the summer of 2017. Was it likely withstanding? No, but it still shows there is some talent there.

 

[CocoHusky]

Fair points. Couple thoughts to interject.

Having watched 4 USA trials now, I do not think they do a good job of evaluating the talent. There are basically too many girls for the short period. The original 25 that get the “personal invite” are shoe ins unless they stumble badly and the other 125 players have to do something super unique or special to have even a slight chance of making it through the cuts. See Angel Reese as best example.

Alli is a fine player but she is not a top 30 player in 2020. On her average Philly Belles team this summer she was not a factor and her playing time reflected that. In my opinion if she had not made the top cut at USA she would not be in anyone’s top 40 even now. This comes mostly from observations this summer and last. High school ball means very little. She’s been steadily dropping in ESPN since USA, she is currently #25. ASGR has her at #27. Bluestar is higher, #17, but she is a Belle .

Deja was a part of the first set of personal invites that USA sent out that included 2020s. She made it far in the cuts because of that, but didn’t make the team. Her college options she’s considering currently reflect her true level of talent. Ultimately college coaches opinions speak volumes.

I not surprised Alli did well at US basketball trials. As I have stated before The Philadelphia Belles do the most outstanding job of preparing kids for USA basketball trials. By the time Belles players show up in Colorado they have been schooled on the drills, the sequence of the drills and key factors that coaches are looking for. In addition there are usually familiar faces in the gym in the form of other Belles players or staff such as Mike Flynn or Kevin Lynch. This is a huge advantage. Celeste Taylor is a best example of a player whose Belles preparation has been a significant edge as she keeps making the USA basketball teams. BTW Celeste is also an example of a player who keeps making USA teams and her rankings kept declining.

 

[Dillon77]

I not surprised Alli did well at US basketball trials. As I have stated before The Philadelphia Belles do the most outstanding job of preparing kids for USA basketball trials. By the time Belles players show up in Colorado they have been schooled on the drills, the sequence of the drills and key factors that coaches are looking for. In addition there are usually familiar faces in the gym in the form of other Belles players or staff such as Mike Flynn or Kevin Lynch. This is a huge advantage. Celeste Taylor is a best example of a player whose Belles preparation has been a significant edge as she keeps making the USA basketball teams. BTW Celeste is also an example of a player who keeps making USA teams and her rankings kept declining.

And Celeste was chosen Pre-season Frosh of the Year at the recent Big`12 Conference Day. One of the best high school (yes, I know some discount high school games, but I don't) games I've seen was her Long Island Lutheran vs. Manasquan. Dara Mabrey vs. Grace Stone (now at Princeton). Taylor and Faith Masonius. Great game.

Look forward to seeing how she does at Austin. I wouldn't of minded if she had ended up north. (But in all fairness, her game has a lot of the same elements of Katlyn Gilbert and Anaya Peoples.)

 

[Cassius Klaiber]

Not sure about Azzi attending First Night, but she’s on campus today. Geno and CD are talking to her and family in the Dairy Bar (I even googled her family to make sure my eyes weren’t playing tricks on me!). Everyone seems happy to me.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Not sure about Azzi attending First Night, but she’s on campus today. Geno and CD are talking to her and family in the Dairy Bar (I even googled her family to make sure my eyes weren’t playing tricks on me!). Everyone seems happy to me.

Haha, love the on-the-ground, locally sourced intel!

I do think the “ranking systems” are over thought by everyone, including college coaches, who pay thousands every year for the information. . . .

This was a great and very helpful post - thanks for sharing your thoughts. The one other thing I'd add is that "effort" and "grit" are really hard to detect from a few showcases here and there and "natural talent" disparities are much greater in high school settings than in college or the pros so HS freaks of nature can end up as college busts. Almost all of the top players are not only naturally talented and blessed with very athletic bodies, but also very hard workers with a strong drive to win and a relentless tenacity even when things don't always go well (think of UConn legends like Sue, DT, Moore, Stewwie - and more recently, Kia Nurse is an excellent example of this).

To me, HS recruiting services have almost no capability to assess for hard work and grit, because it's not as apparent as talent or natural athleticism in a handful of showcase games. Yet in the long term, that matters more. I feel like players like Joyner Holmes and Rellah Boothe are two different kinds of examples of this, and a coach like Aston just simply doesn't have the coaching skills to turn that around, so they either flounder (Holmes) or flail and move on (Boothe). Closer to home, Kailee Johnson was an example at Stanford. Y'all will say "who?!" - but once upon a time she was the #1 ranked recruit her HS soph. year, and was still top 15 by college. Tara said every year, "Kailee will be as good as she is committed to basketball," and every year she wasn't interested in putting in that effort. Eventually, she quit basketball entirely before her senior year at Stanford, because she simply wasn't that interested in the game anymore.

More than anything, that's why I think Bueckers can be a once-in-a-generation player - her work ethic and basketball hunger seems off the charts, and that will end up taking her much farther than her frame or basketball IQ alone could take her.

 

[eebmg]

Not sure about Azzi attending First Night, but she’s on campus today. Geno and CD are talking to her and family in the Dairy Bar (I even googled her family to make sure my eyes weren’t playing tricks on me!). Everyone seems happy to me.

Best place to close a deal.

How sweet it is

 

[BobbyJ]

Best place to close a deal.

How sweet it is

View attachment 47134

I’ve felt all along that this deal was sealed quite a while ago. Makes too much sense.