I'm not a UConn fan, but I believe that UConn's class (based just on the rankings) is the class I would rather have. You get lots of quality without filling up too many slots. Most teams only give 7-8 players decent minutes, so if those players can all be highly regarded, you're doing great! I think the top 5 players typically encompass the 'franchise' players (difference makers for a program like Chiney, Diggins, Griner, KML, Stewart, Sims, Gray, etc.), so recruiting them is generally much better than getting 2 players in the early 20's. The talent drop-off is very steep, so players in the 40's are generally worth much less than players in the 20's. Of course there are always gems that are unearthed/developed who are much better than their rankings. Dolson was 39th in HoopsGurlz, but I don't know her composite ranking. Kayla McBride was ranked 20th, but she's better than many of the players ranked above her. But these players are very rare exceptions, statistically much less common than top 5 players that never reach their projected potential (list your favorite bust here, mines probably Sophia Loren). There's lots of information in the rankings, but there's a bit of variance that makes interpreting them literally a treacherous enterprise.