Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lwrc, post: 3208050, member: 9903"] I don’t know if I’m considered a “boneyarder” or “lurker” yet? I’m still a newbie, so probably a Lurker! I love all the detail and stuff! Thanks for sharing all this. I know this info/thread was pushed out off some comments in another thread about rankings. Thought I would just post in here instead of the other thread. I think we all agree that rankings for high schoolers is a tricky thing and everyone will have a certain percentage of misses on players. So I think assessing the scouting services is more about percentages and how often players are over ranked or under ranked once their college careers play out. Of course, as mentioned, college careers can be significantly influenced by opportunity and other factors. Mikayla Coombs might be an example of that. Just not enough PT for her with the stable of players of UConn. But I could see her excelling to a top 10 (for her age) level as a college player elsewhere. A player like Hunter also was victim to her situation with Geno. But she’s an example of scouting services not taking into account attitude, character and coachability. Same with Gordon. I referenced this in another post but I think Reese is a good example. Ranked too high because of serious attitude and coachability question marks. Not a loss for UConn in my opinion. She would be Espinoza-Hunter part 2! I know you like CGBR but it just seems there is alternate agendas, missing logic, and a lack of support system relative to the other services. Most “college only” pay services utilize multiple staff and are accountable to the college coaches only. The public posting and ESPN backing for CGBR I think adds an agenda and less accountability. Same with PN which adds not only public posting but also has a “pay for tweets” program that can create a terrible connection allowing players to basically pay their way into rankings. I know this won’t go over well in a UConn forum (I am a fan), but it does seem like Dangerfield was over ranked by many. ESPN/CGBR had her ahead of Inescu and Jackie Young. Once again, small flashy guard getting higher rankings than deserved. This is the missing logic I think many services whiff on at times, but CGBR most often. Shorter players with lots of flashiness have to bring far more to the table than flashiness in college. And almost all (few exceptions) end up being one dimensional (albeit needed for every team) PGs that run offenses well. Dangerfield. Great at her role but not a top 10 player in her class. I am sure that Dan Olson is a great guy and he does countless hours assessing girls basketball. And I am thankful there are guys like him out there helping promote the women’s game. And I’m sure there are times that Olson hits a home run with his assessment/ranking. As I mentioned it’s more about consistency and structure. I do see the helpfulness of multiple reports coming after every scout. But I would still prefer ASGR or Bluestar over CGBR [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,422

Messages: 4,395,694

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl