Top prospects for 2021....ESPN

[Cuango]

I just think ESPN has become a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that can no longer be trusted. They seem (imo) to be more interested in what benefits their brand than objectivity and truth. They are no longer willing to make the tough call but rather seem to take the least controversial path every time. When you start choosing your bottom line over truth and objectivity, you have lost your way.

 

[Alydar]

I just think ESPN has become a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that can no longer be trusted. They seem (imo) to be more interested in what benefits their brand than objectivity and truth. They are no longer willing to make the tough call but rather seem to take the least controversial path every time. When you start choosing your bottom line over truth and objectivity, you have lost your way.

You sir/madam are talking about what makes US business the success it is.

 

[soxfan23]

Excellent post by CocoHuskey about evaluators in the September UConn recruiting thread.

Red flag about players paying $900 to be "evaluated." Also, the evaluators are tied in with a tournament that Raven and Caroline competed in last month. I'm pretty certain their performance in that tounament had something big to do with their big "jumps" in the rankings

The $900 evaluation fee is just the tip of the iceberg regarding red flags with all these evaluation services! Sneaker companies pay 10s of thousands of dollars for them to promote "Nike kids", "Adidas kids", etc. Coaches also pay 10s of thousands of dollars, especially if they are on the hot seat at their respected school. Spending $20k to raise your recruiting class ranking in order to save your $1+ million dollar/year job is just a sound financial decision for a lot of these coaches! These services also receive 10s of thousands of dollars from high school/AAU coaches who are looking to get their players in high level D1 schools. Just a really dishonest and shady business from top to bottom! I would take ALL rankings with a grain of salt, good and bad.

 

[soxfan23]

I just think ESPN has become a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that can no longer be trusted. They seem (imo) to be more interested in what benefits their brand than objectivity and truth. They are no longer willing to make the tough call but rather seem to take the least controversial path every time. When you start choosing your bottom line over truth and objectivity, you have lost your way.

Agreed, but according to their ratings and massive layoffs it has absolutely backfired! The saying "get woke, go broke" exists for a reason.

 

[Alydar]

When you start choosing your bottom line over truth and objectivity, you have lost your way.

The truth unfortunately ends up being what is written in the headlines and ESPN writes the headlines.

While I curse ESPN often and loudly they are really the main source for wcbb streaming. I think that Fox will stream all of the UConn games (and put a few in FS1/2 . If Bueckers draws viewers like I think she will it will be interesting to see who gets non-conference game rights unless Fox gets BE conference and non-conference rights under the one package.

 

[BobbyJ]

The $900 evaluation fee is just the tip of the iceberg regarding red flags with all these evaluation services! Sneaker companies pay 10s of thousands of dollars for them to promote "Nike kids", "Adidas kids", etc. Coaches also pay 10s of thousands of dollars, especially if they are on the hot seat at their respected school. Spending $20k to raise your recruiting class ranking in order to save your $1+ million dollar/year job is just a sound financial decision for a lot of these coaches! These services also receive 10s of thousands of dollars from high school/AAU coaches who are looking to get their players in high level D1 schools. Just a really dishonest and shady business from top to bottom! I would take ALL rankings with a grain of salt, good and bad.

I agree with your premise that all of these rankings are subjective and overrated. But two questions. How does a high level coach save their job by having a high recruiting class ranking from these gurus if it turns out that those kids aren't actually very good and don't win a lot of games? And do you really believe that high level D1 coaches are risking their jobs and signing players based on what these amateur gurus and pushy AAU coaches tell them?

 

[Alydar]

I think they earn their money with detailed individual scouting reports paid for by either the parents or the colleges. Coaches that don't have 6 figure recruiting budgets probably have to rely on these reports and their own networks to find players. So a rater shouldn't last long giving out BS advise.

But the shoe connection gave me a thought that maybe in the recruit's bio they should list the shoe of her HS/AAU teams and the shoe company of the schools recruiting her. It might help in predicting choices.

 

[victor64]

I enjoy the rankings because they are debatable and an indication of who is doing well in recruiting. If DeBarry drops in the one of the

As far as the Uconn kids, if a certain, unnamed, number one ranked recruit chooses the Huskies, Geno and his staff will be ecstatic with all four, no matter where the other three will be ranked.

 

[soxfan23]

I agree with your premise that all of these rankings are subjective and overrated. But two questions. How does a high level coach save their job by having a high recruiting class ranking from these gurus if it turns out that those kids aren't actually very good and don't win a lot of games? And do you really believe that high level D1 coaches are risking their jobs and signing players based on what these amateur gurus and pushy AAU coaches tell them?

Coach X is on the hot seat and about to get fired, he/she tells the AD just wait until next year, I have this amazing recruiting class coming in, he/she gets an additional couple of years at $1+mil/yr. When the kids show up and don't produce he/she will eventually be fired but they just made an additional couple million dollars. When I say "high level D1", I am not referring to perennial Top 10 teams, I am referring to the top 25% of schools. There are 331 D1 women's teams, those teams in the 40-80 range don't have the recruiting budgets of Top 10 schools, the coaches of those schools ABSOLUTELY pay close attention to recruiting rankings!

 

[soxfan23]

I think they earn their money with detailed individual scouting reports paid for by either the parents or the colleges. Coaches that don't have 6 figure recruiting budgets probably have to rely on these reports and their own networks to find players. So a rater shouldn't last long giving out BS advise.

But the shoe connection gave me a thought that maybe in the recruit's bio they should list the shoe of her HS/AAU teams and the shoe company of the schools recruiting her. It might help in predicting choices.

One of the main reasons why I think Fudd is going to Maryland, far too many connections to Under Armor and Maryland.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I just think ESPN has become a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that can no longer be trusted. They seem (imo) to be more interested in what benefits their brand than objectivity and truth. They are no longer willing to make the tough call but rather seem to take the least controversial path every time. When you start choosing your bottom line over truth and objectivity, you have lost your way.

They lost all objectivity years ago when it was blatantly obvious they were rooting for SEC schools in all the non revenue sports (let alone football, their bias there is monumental).

 

[jumpstart]

I just think ESPN has become a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that can no longer be trusted. They seem (imo) to be more interested in what benefits their brand than objectivity and truth. They are no longer willing to make the tough call but rather seem to take the least controversial path every time. When you start choosing your bottom line over truth and objectivity, you have lost your way.

It's funny when a particular fan base accuses ESPN of being corrupt and bias...only...and again...only....if their players are being ranked lower. The fact that it is subjective is true but ESPN has done a pretty good job over the years ranking classes and the actual results of those classes. I would argue the same could be said about the individual player rankings. The rankings are not going to effect the players talent once they take the floor in college, nor is it going to effect the teams performance they join if they get bumped lower. It will be what it is in the end. Look back at the player rankings over the years and you will see consistent evaluations across the board. You could probably re-rank them in 5 years and see some discrepancies, but most will be very close to their last original rankings.

 

[mbr33ct]

I have just finished slicing, dicing and sorting out a new ranking list of 2021 recruits. Took info that was provided in this thread, Prospects Nation, Blue Star top 30 and HoopGurlz and put it to new spreadsheet. Averaged out new scores for recruits and the following is/are results.

Disclaimer: At no time was money exchanged for this list.

 

[SVCBeercats]

You sir/madam are talking about what makes US business the success it is.

You know not of what you speak.

 

[CocoHusky]

I have just finished slicing, dicing and sorting out a new ranking list of 2021 recruits. Took info that was provided in this thread, Prospects Nation, Blue Star top 30 and HoopGurlz and put it to new spreadsheet. Averaged out new scores for recruits and the following is/are results.

Disclaimer: At no time was money exchanged for this list.

View attachment 58527

Nice work!

 

[HopJim]

While I am in agreement that money can influence some degree of the rankings, a few thoughts:
-Without ESPN, where would women's college basketball be? For many years, ESPN has been one of the few networks to publicize and follow this sport.
-As with most surveys and polls, if you eliminate the highs and lows, you appear to have relatively accurate assessments.
-We all seem to agree Paige earned her #1 ranking. Curious if anyone knows what network and its associated financials backed her, if any. I.e. Adidas/Nike, AAU network, etc.?

 

[MdStang]

I've seen Saylor 3x. Here are her weaknesses: (1) She had hip surgery; (2) Middletown plays low-level competition.

Middletown is in the smaller school division of the Central Maryland Conference so many of Middletown's opponents are lesser competition. Middletown plays these schools on a home and away schedule. They also play the larger school division teams once a year, which is tougher competition. Add in holiday tourney teams and other one-of games (like Mir's team last season) and they probably play 2/3 of the schedule against lesser teams.

The larger schools in Frederick County do send WBB athletes to smaller Division I schools, but there are exceptions: Makayla Daniels, formerly of Frederick High, was a starter for Arkansas last year as a freshman.
Frederick is always Middletown's toughest local opponent. They won two straight state championships before imploding last year (players quitting the team, coach later removed). If Saylor gets to play this season the Frederick game will be the one to see.

 

[visitingcock]

I have just finished slicing, dicing and sorting out a new ranking list of 2021 recruits. Took info that was provided in this thread, Prospects Nation, Blue Star top 30 and HoopGurlz and put it to new spreadsheet. Averaged out new scores for recruits and the following is/are results.

Disclaimer: At no time was money exchanged for this list.

View attachment 58527

Very Good work! But I have two questions about methodology

Did you add the three ranking spots then divide by three for your average rank? That doesn't seem to work for Saniya Rivers. She is #2 in PN, #3 in HG, and #6 in BS for a total of 11. Divide by 3 and she has an average rating of 3.66 rather than 4.5. (Does not change her position. I'm just curious about the numbers)

Did you only use the Top 30 for Blue Star instead of all their rankings? Here's why I ask: Aubryanna Hall is not in the BS Top 30. However, they do rank her at 40. She is #14 in HG and #52 in PN. Using my formula above (which may not be what you use), her average rank would be 35.3. If you only use Blue Star Top 30, shouldn't you use the same limitation on the other two services?

Of course my examples are Gamecock recruits because that is who I follow. By using the examples with which I have some familiarity, I am NOT accusing you of bias toward Gamecock recruits. I'm not THAT paranoid. Just curious about the methodology. I do appreciate your effort greatly.

Thank You

 

[mbr33ct]

Very Good work! But I have two questions about methodology

Did you add the three ranking spots then divide by three for your average rank? That doesn't seem to work for Saniya Rivers. She is #2 in PN, #3 in HG, and #6 in BS for a total of 11. Divide by 3 and she has an average rating of 3.66 rather than 4.5. (Does not change her position. I'm just curious about the numbers)

Did you only use the Top 30 for Blue Star instead of all their rankings? Here's why I ask: Aubryanna Hall is not in the BS Top 30. However, they do rank her at 40. She is #14 in HG and #52 in PN. Using my formula above (which may not be what you use), her average rank would be 35.3. If you only use Blue Star Top 30, shouldn't you use the same limitation on the other two services?

Of course my examples are Gamecock recruits because that is who I follow. By using the examples with which I have some familiarity, I am NOT accusing you of bias toward Gamecock recruits. I'm not THAT paranoid. Just curious about the methodology. I do appreciate your effort greatly.

Thank You

Yes to divide by 3, wasn't going to put "extra effort" into this. I only used the top 30 for Blue Star, what was given here in this thread...again, wasn't going to go the "extra mile" for this. Also, I used the top 30 as the list of players. If Prospect Nations nor HoopGurlz did not have the recruits in Blue Star...so be it. Believe me, no bias was used here, just pure numbers. Below is the worksheet for the final tally.

 

[CocoHusky]

While I am in agreement that money can influence some degree of the rankings, a few thoughts:
-Without ESPN, where would women's college basketball be? For many years, ESPN has been one of the few networks to publicize and follow this sport.
-As with most surveys and polls, if you eliminate the highs and lows, you appear to have relatively accurate assessments.
-We all seem to agree Paige earned her #1 ranking. Curious if anyone knows what network and its associated financials backed her, if any. I.e. Adidas/Nike, AAU network, etc.?

The ability to influence rankings with money, sneaker companies or networks is being highly overstated here as it relates to women's basketball. The overwhelming majority (>99%) of top 250 players (including Paige) earn their ranking legitimately by busting their behinds in the gym. There are "affiliation" of sneaker companies with AAU teams. Nike (EYBL), Under Armour, Addidas have circuits which are a series of national level tournaments. Mostly everyone has read the stories of corruption and illegal payments by these sneaker companies to players and their relatives. I'm afraid many might be projecting (assuming?) what is happening in the men's game is also happening in the Women's game. Both Paige, Christyn Williams, and ONO ( before the injury) solidified their #1 spot by playing USA basketball. USA basketball is Nike affiliated.

 

[CocoHusky]

Yes to divide by 3, wasn't going to put "extra effort" into this. I only used the top 30 for Blue Star, what was given here in this thread...again, wasn't going to go the "extra mile" for this. Also, I used the top 30 as the list of players. If Prospect Nations nor HoopGurlz did not have the recruits in Blue Star...so be it. Believe me, no bias was used here, just pure numbers. Below is the worksheet for the final tally.

View attachment 58532

Please double check Caroline I believe Prospect Nation has her at 23 not 2 .

 

[mbr33ct]

Please double check Caroline I believe Prospect Nation has her at 23 not 2 .

You are correct, below is the "revised" (just like ESPN's HoopGurlz) ranking. Caroline is at 11.7 now.

 

[HuskylnSC]

Building on @mbr33ct 's hard work:

Composite Ranking	HG Rank	Player	Composite Score	Committed	Position
1​	1	Azzi Fudd	1	None	G
2​	3	Saniya Rivers	4.5	South Carolina	G
3​	8	Olivia Miles	4.7	Notre Dame	PG
4​	6	Aaliyah Moore	5.7	Texas	F
5​	15	Amari DeBerry	7.3	UConn	F
6​	4	Sania Feagin	8.7	South Carolina	F
7​	12	Payton Verhulst	9	Louisville	G
8​	11	Brooke Demetre	9.7	Stanford	W
9​	5	Caroline Ducharme	11.7	UConn	G
10​	2	Raven Johnson	14.3	South Carolina	PG
11​	10	Rori Harmon	15	Texas	PG
12​	30	Saylor Poffenbarger	15.3	UConn	G
13​	17	Kayla McPherson	16.3	North Carolina	PG
14​	9	Teonni Key	16.7	North Carolina	W
15​	19	Okikiola Iriafen	17	Stanford	F
16​	7	Jersey Wolfenbarger	17.71	Arkansas	PG
17​	29	Taylor Bigby	17.72	Oregon	G
18​	27	Rayah Marshall	18.7	None	G
19​	24	Kyndall Hunter	20.7	None	PG
20​	16	Sonia Citron	21	Notre Dame	G
21​	32	Greta Kampschroeder	22	Oregon State	G
22​	21	Clarice Akunwafo	24	USC	P
23​	23	Damiya Hagemann	26	None	PG
24​	31	O'Mariah Gordon	28	None	PG
25​	37	Jillian Hollingshead	29	None	F
26​		Ava Learn	29.1
27​	34	Reigan Richardson	33.3	Georgia	G
28​	87	Jada Walker	44.3	Kentucky	PG
29​	99	Macie James	53.5	Oklahoma State	G
30​	57	Sacha Washington	55.5	Purdue	F

 

[visitingcock]

Question: Will Blue Star and Prospect Nation update their rankings before NSD.

Questions # 2: Does anybody know the last time those two services updated?

 

[Fossil]

As difficult as it is to ignore the rankings we must. In Geno and CD we must trust their judgment they will watch tape watch in person do the background checks to see who is right for the Connecticut program regardless of the rankings. I’d rather have a lower ranked player with a higher basketball IQ so that she can learn from the best coaching staff in the country. As we have seen intelligence and drive play a major part in adjusting to the Connecticut system. It is fun to see the rankings but in reality they mean very little to Connecticut recruiting.