Updated 2016 Class Rankings by Blue Star

[Fightin Choke]

OK, so Blue Star has updated their class rankings for the Class of 2016. They do not incorporate transfers (in or out) when computing these values but rather just assign values to each recruit based on their rankings and then sum the values of each member of a recruiting class to get a total score (similar to vowelguy's method, although VG uses a composite ranking that incorporates all available ranks, i.e. Hoopgurlz, Prospects Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR). And it seems to me that, like vowelguy's method, it is difficult to balance class quantity and quality. While we cannot see the scores of each class, they ranked each school by its score (LINK). Here, I list the schools and Blue Star ranks of each player are in parentheses. Unranked US recruits are listed as all ranked 400th by Blue Star. Foreign recruits are not ranked because they are not evaluated, so they are different than unranked US athletes who should have been evaluated and were deemed unworthy of being ranked above 400th.

Does anyone have a problem with how they arrived at these recruiting class scores (assuming Blue Star's individual rankings are accurate)? Does it pass the smell test? As usual, I think it values quantity far more than quality. Would you really rather have Oregon's class (ranked 5th) than Notre Dame's class (ranked 14th)? The Ducks have 5 recruits (ranked between 70th and 181st) whereas the Irish have 2 recruits (ranked 6th and 8th). I suppose one could argue that for a school that had very few good players, a large class (with a bunch of recruits ranked around 100th) could be preferable, but if they already have some talent at the school, wouldn't a small class of high quality recruits (top 20 or even top 10) be more valuable? I know I would rather have Baylor's class than Oregon's, and it's not close. TCU's class or ND's? Give me the Irish and it's not close.

1. Maryland (10, 15, 23, 25, 33, 67)
2. Louisville (12, 24, 29, 57, 74)
3. Texas (1, 17, 36, foreign)
4. Ohio State (7, 28, 30)
5. Oregon (70, 75, 78, 176, 181)
6. Baylor (2, 13, 54)
7. Iowa (20, 79, 84, 91, 120)
8. Florida State (27, 41, 76, 123, foreign)
9. USC (18, 45, 101, 134)
10. Connecticut (3, 44, 111)
11. Vanderbilt (9, 50, 117, 155, 400)
12. Virginia (16, 26, 53)
13. Texas Christian (11, 86, 122, 189)
14. Notre Dame (6, 8)
15. North Carolina (47, 87, 114, 128, 136, 208, 226)
16. Michigan (19, 102, 113, 126)
17. Stanford (42, 43, 85, foreign)
18. West Virginia (63, 138, 213, 400)
19. Mississippi (40, 82, 99)
20. Texas A&M (49, 68, 149, 195)
21. North Carolina State (34, 58, foreign)
22. Wisconsin (52, 133, 142, 249, 295, 400)
23. Arizona State (64, 103, 119, 132, 400)
24. Washington (46, 72, 154, 164)
25. Wake Forest (80, 216, 232, foreign)

 

[Sluconn Husky]

As usual, I think it values quantity far more than quality.

Don't all the services pretty much ranks classes like that, boys included? I actually understand why they use that method though like you I'd rather have 2 potential stars than 3 good players and 2 decent ones.

Louisville got a lot of hype for last year's #1 ranking but outside of Durr what are they going to get out of it? It's still early and players will develop but that class doesn't look quite as formidable as advertised. OTOH, the Huskies' class was ranked third by a few services and even with Boykin gone UConn has a chance of getting two stars from it.

 

[mhshuskies]

OK, so Blue Star has updated their class rankings for the Class of 2016. They do not incorporate transfers (in or out) when computing these values but rather just assign values to each recruit based on their rankings and then sum the values of each member of a recruiting class to get a total score (similar to vowelguy's method, although VG uses a composite ranking that incorporates all available ranks, i.e. Hoopgurlz, Prospects Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR). And it seems to me that, like vowelguy's method, it is difficult to balance class quantity and quality. While we cannot see the scores of each class, they ranked each school by its score (LINK). Here, I list the schools and Blue Star ranks of each player are in parentheses. Unranked US recruits are listed as all ranked 400th by Blue Star. Foreign recruits are not ranked because they are not evaluated, so they are different than unranked US athletes who should have been evaluated and were deemed unworthy of being ranked above 400th.

Does anyone have a problem with how they arrived at these recruiting class scores (assuming Blue Star's individual rankings are accurate)? Does it pass the smell test? As usual, I think it values quantity far more than quality. Would you really rather have Oregon's class (ranked 5th) than Notre Dame's class (ranked 14th)? The Ducks have 5 recruits (ranked between 70th and 181st) whereas the Irish have 2 recruits (ranked 6th and 8th). I suppose one could argue that for a school that had very few good players, a large class (with a bunch of recruits ranked around 100th) could be preferable, but if they already have some talent at the school, wouldn't a small class of high quality recruits (top 20 or even top 10) be more valuable? I know I would rather have Baylor's class than Oregon's, and it's not close. TCU's class or ND's? Give me the Irish and it's not close.

1. Maryland (10, 15, 23, 25, 33, 67)
2. Louisville (12, 24, 29, 57, 74)
3. Texas (1, 17, 36, foreign)
4. Ohio State (7, 28, 30)
5. Oregon (70, 75, 78, 176, 181)
6. Baylor (2, 13, 54)
7. Iowa (20, 79, 84, 91, 120)
8. Florida State (27, 41, 76, 123, foreign)
9. USC (18, 45, 101, 134)
10. Connecticut (3, 44, 111)
11. Vanderbilt (9, 50, 117, 155, 400)
12. Virginia (16, 26, 53)
13. Texas Christian (11, 86, 122, 189)
14. Notre Dame (6, 8)
15. North Carolina (47, 87, 114, 128, 136, 208, 226)
16. Michigan (19, 102, 113, 126)
17. Stanford (42, 43, 85, foreign)
18. West Virginia (63, 138, 213, 400)
19. Mississippi (40, 82, 99)
20. Texas A&M (49, 68, 149, 195)
21. North Carolina State (34, 58, foreign)
22. Wisconsin (52, 133, 142, 249, 295, 400)
23. Arizona State (64, 103, 119, 132, 400)
24. Washington (46, 72, 154, 164)
25. Wake Forest (80, 216, 232, foreign)

Of course it's not really about the recruit rankings, it's about what you do with them. 11 NC vs. 1 (by default). Give me Geno, and it's not even close!

 

[triaddukefan]

OK, so Blue Star has updated their class rankings for the Class of 2016. They do not incorporate transfers (in or out) when computing these values but rather just assign values to each recruit based on their rankings and then sum the values of each member of a recruiting class to get a total score (similar to vowelguy's method, although VG uses a composite ranking that incorporates all available ranks, i.e. Hoopgurlz, Prospects Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR). And it seems to me that, like vowelguy's method, it is difficult to balance class quantity and quality. While we cannot see the scores of each class, they ranked each school by its score (LINK). Here, I list the schools and Blue Star ranks of each player are in parentheses. Unranked US recruits are listed as all ranked 400th by Blue Star. Foreign recruits are not ranked because they are not evaluated, so they are different than unranked US athletes who should have been evaluated and were deemed unworthy of being ranked above 400th.

Does anyone have a problem with how they arrived at these recruiting class scores (assuming Blue Star's individual rankings are accurate)? Does it pass the smell test? As usual, I think it values quantity far more than quality. Would you really rather have Oregon's class (ranked 5th) than Notre Dame's class (ranked 14th)? The Ducks have 5 recruits (ranked between 70th and 181st) whereas the Irish have 2 recruits (ranked 6th and 8th). I suppose one could argue that for a school that had very few good players, a large class (with a bunch of recruits ranked around 100th) could be preferable, but if they already have some talent at the school, wouldn't a small class of high quality recruits (top 20 or even top 10) be more valuable? I know I would rather have Baylor's class than Oregon's, and it's not close. TCU's class or ND's? Give me the Irish and it's not close.
)

Its not like you have a choice

 

[SCGamecock]

The rankings look a little wonky to me... but I haven't evaluated every single recruit in the 2016 class so maybe they know this thing better than I do..

 

[UcMiami]

Choke - I agree with pretty much everyone else, classes that get into 5 and 6 players tend to prove out based on the top two or three players and the others are often 'left behind'. I think it is very hard for coaching staffs to actually coach 5 freshman effectively so you get slower development or almost no development towards the back end of the class's talent pool. There are not many TASSK classes where you have even 4 out of the 5 reaching their potential, and are more likely to see attrition or stagnation.

I don't know if there is a systemic change to class ranking that you could institute, and really, why bother. Having the number three class looks pretty on paper but it doesn't actually guarantee you a single win once the season starts. It provides an indication of whether a school is bringing in talent to replace what they lost to graduation. Composition plays into it as well - Baylor with two young talented post players probably derives less benefit from Cox, than say ND would have. That isn't to say she is not a great recruit to get, just that to some extent some of her minutes will replace some of the minutes that one of the others would have gotten.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Choke - I agree with pretty much everyone else, classes that get into 5 and 6 players tend to prove out based on the top two or three players and the others are often 'left behind'. I think it is very hard for coaching staffs to actually coach 5 freshman effectively so you get slower development or almost no development towards the back end of the class's talent pool. There are not many TASSK classes where you have even 4 out of the 5 reaching their potential, and are more likely to see attrition or stagnation.

I don't know if there is a systemic change to class ranking that you could institute, and really, why bother. Having the number three class looks pretty on paper but it doesn't actually guarantee you a single win once the season starts. It provides an indication of whether a school is bringing in talent to replace what they lost to graduation. Composition plays into it as well - Baylor with two young talented post players probably derives less benefit from Cox, than say ND would have. That isn't to say she is not a great recruit to get, just that to some extent some of her minutes will replace some of the minutes that one of the others would have gotten.

I agree with you that small classes of quality are usually far more valuable than large classes of mediocrity, especially for top 25 teams. That's why I am so stunned that Jeff Walz is still casting such a wide net, as he is successful enough in recruiting that he should be more selective. Sure, he has a better chance of finding a diamond in the rough if he over-recruits, but that will probably come back to bite him on the butt at some point. I hear that he's a nice guy and I think (hope) he will be more selective in his recruiting going forward.

I thought about your point considering need, and I realize it would be very hard for analysts to include that in some quantitative ranking. Still, it's very important for coaches to balance their classes, and it appears that Baylor is flush with posts and Notre Dame is flush with perimeter players. I'm sure that a large part of that is emphasis by the coaches (McGraw loves her guards), but I know that Muffet wanted Cox, and she would have helped the Irish a lot more than she will help the Bears simply because of team need.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

OK, so Blue Star has updated their class rankings for the Class of 2016. They do not incorporate transfers (in or out) when computing these values but rather just assign values to each recruit based on their rankings and then sum the values of each member of a recruiting class to get a total score (similar to vowelguy's method, although VG uses a composite ranking that incorporates all available ranks, i.e. Hoopgurlz, Prospects Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR). And it seems to me that, like vowelguy's method, it is difficult to balance class quantity and quality. While we cannot see the scores of each class, they ranked each school by its score (LINK). Here, I list the schools and Blue Star ranks of each player are in parentheses. Unranked US recruits are listed as all ranked 400th by Blue Star. Foreign recruits are not ranked because they are not evaluated, so they are different than unranked US athletes who should have been evaluated and were deemed unworthy of being ranked above 400th.

Does anyone have a problem with how they arrived at these recruiting class scores (assuming Blue Star's individual rankings are accurate)? Does it pass the smell test? As usual, I think it values quantity far more than quality. Would you really rather have Oregon's class (ranked 5th) than Notre Dame's class (ranked 14th)? The Ducks have 5 recruits (ranked between 70th and 181st) whereas the Irish have 2 recruits (ranked 6th and 8th). I suppose one could argue that for a school that had very few good players, a large class (with a bunch of recruits ranked around 100th) could be preferable, but if they already have some talent at the school, wouldn't a small class of high quality recruits (top 20 or even top 10) be more valuable? I know I would rather have Baylor's class than Oregon's, and it's not close. TCU's class or ND's? Give me the Irish and it's not close.

1. Maryland (10, 15, 23, 25, 33, 67)
2. Louisville (12, 24, 29, 57, 74)
3. Texas (1, 17, 36, foreign)
4. Ohio State (7, 28, 30)
5. Oregon (70, 75, 78, 176, 181)
6. Baylor (2, 13, 54)
7. Iowa (20, 79, 84, 91, 120)
8. Florida State (27, 41, 76, 123, foreign)
9. USC (18, 45, 101, 134)
10. Connecticut (3, 44, 111)
11. Vanderbilt (9, 50, 117, 155, 400)
12. Virginia (16, 26, 53)
13. Texas Christian (11, 86, 122, 189)
14. Notre Dame (6, 8)
15. North Carolina (47, 87, 114, 128, 136, 208, 226)
16. Michigan (19, 102, 113, 126)
17. Stanford (42, 43, 85, foreign)
18. West Virginia (63, 138, 213, 400)
19. Mississippi (40, 82, 99)
20. Texas A&M (49, 68, 149, 195)
21. North Carolina State (34, 58, foreign)
22. Wisconsin (52, 133, 142, 249, 295, 400)
23. Arizona State (64, 103, 119, 132, 400)
24. Washington (46, 72, 154, 164)
25. Wake Forest (80, 216, 232, foreign)

So Kyla Irwin is ranked #44 nationally by Blue Star? And Molly Bent is #111, I presume?

I hadn't noticed this article on Molly Bent before, but it is very revealing about her, but more about how Coach Geno and his staff recruit: How Connecticut's 2016 Recruiting Class Came To Be

"Bent was overlooked in part because she was an elite soccer player who didn't play many AAU tournaments until she decided to focus on basketball last year. Coughlin said that in his 46 years of teaching and coaching, Bent made the biggest improvement from her sophomore year to her junior year of any player he's seen. Irwin, a 6-foot-2 post from State College, Pennsylvania, was the last of six children, and playing a national AAU schedule would have been an undue strain on the family's finances...How about hearing it straight from Auriemma?

"Kyla is the kind of kid that we have taken great pride in getting over the last 30 years," he said. "She is a hard-working, high-energy kid and has skills that allow her to play more than one position."

""Geno has it right," Thomas said. "People spend thousands and thousands of dollars to travel all over the country and they really don't have to. Because [Kyla] didn't do what the so-called recruiting people said we should do, she wasn't in that top whatever. If you look at the McDonald's All Americans from Alyssa's class -- who made it, who didn't make it -- it's kind of scary that they don't have it right at all."

Apologies if this was given wide exposure before here.

 

[EricLA]

I'm with Choke. ND should be anywhere from 2 to 4 depending on how you score it. If I were a ND fan though, there is NO team I'd trade the 6 and 8 player in the class for - not even MD with the #1 class.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Don't all the services pretty much ranks classes like that, boys included? I actually understand why they use that method though like you I'd rather have 2 potential stars than 3 good players and 2 decent ones.

Louisville got a lot of hype for last year's #1 ranking but outside of Durr what are they going to get out of it? It's still early and players will develop but that class doesn't look quite as formidable as advertised. OTOH, the Huskies' class was ranked third by a few services and even with Boykin gone UConn has a chance of getting two stars from it.

But they don't all rank classes the same way and thus they get very different results. The Blue Star class rankings for 2016 are posted above, and here are the Prospects Nation class rankings (LINK). Note that these have not been updated to relflect recent commitments (they are from Nov 18, 2015), but very few players have committed during that time.

1. Maryland
2. Texas
3. Notre Dame
4. Baylor
5. Ohio State
6. Louisville
7. Stanford
8. Texas Christian
9. Arizona State
10. Vanderbilt
11. Connecticut
12. Florida State
13. Virginia
14. Oregon State
15. Michigan
16. Oregon
17. Michigan State
18. Washington
19. North Carolina State
20. Oklahoma
21. Southern Cal
22. Ole Miss
23. Iowa
24. Harvard
25. Texas A&M
26. California
27. Arkansas
28. Georgia
29. North Carolina
30. Kansas State
31. Dayton
32. Georgetown
33. Purdue
34. Villanova
35. Texas Tech
36. Duke
37. Kentucky
38. South Carolina
39. Alabama
40. Georgia Tech
41. Nebraska
42. Northwestern
43. Wisconsin
44. Florida
45. Central Florida
46. Minnesota
47. Oklahoma State
48. Syracuse
49. Indiana
50. (tie)West Virginia (tie) Wake Forest

For Hoopgurlz, here are the class rankings (updated just a week ago (LINK):

1. Maryland
2. Baylor
3. Texas
4. Notre Dame
5. Louisville
6. Florida State
7. Oregon
8. Ohio State
9. Stanford
10. ASU
11. South Carolina
12. USC (west)
13. North Carolina
14. Connecticut
15. TCU
16. Oregon State
17. Michigan State
18. Vanderbilt
19. Virginia
20. NC State

So Notre Dame is ranked 3rd, 4th, and 14th.
Oregon is ranked 5th, 7th, 14th.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

But they don't all rank classes the same way and thus they get very different results. The Blue Star class rankings for 2016 are posted above, and here are the Prospects Nation class rankings (LINK). Note that these have not been updated to relflect recent commitments (they are from Nov 18, 2015), but very few players have committed during that time.

1. Maryland
2. Texas
3. Notre Dame
4. Baylor
5. Ohio State
6. Louisville
7. Stanford
8. Texas Christian
9. Arizona State
10. Vanderbilt
11. Connecticut
12. Florida State
13. Virginia
14. Oregon State
15. Michigan
16. Oregon
17. Michigan State
18. Washington
19. North Carolina State
20. Oklahoma
21. Southern Cal
22. Ole Miss
23. Iowa
24. Harvard
25. Texas A&M
26. California
27. Arkansas
28. Georgia
29. North Carolina
30. Kansas State
31. Dayton
32. Georgetown
33. Purdue
34. Villanova
35. Texas Tech
36. Duke
37. Kentucky
38. South Carolina
39. Alabama
40. Georgia Tech
41. Nebraska
42. Northwestern
43. Wisconsin
44. Florida
45. Central Florida
46. Minnesota
47. Oklahoma State
48. Syracuse
49. Indiana
50. (tie)West Virginia (tie) Wake Forest

For Hoopgurlz, here are the class rankings (updated just a week ago (LINK):

1. Maryland
2. Baylor
3. Texas
4. Notre Dame
5. Louisville
6. Florida State
7. Oregon
8. Ohio State
9. Stanford
10. ASU
11. South Carolina
12. USC (west)
13. North Carolina
14. Connecticut
15. TCU
16. Oregon State
17. Michigan State
18. Vanderbilt
19. Virginia
20. NC State

So Notre Dame is ranked 3rd, 4th, and 14th.
Oregon is ranked 5th, 7th, 14th.

The fallacy of these rankings lies in the fact that they're based on number of recruits, rather than on quality of recruits. If you land the best player in the class, plus the #2, and follow up that year with two top-twenty performers, then you're in line for a national championship. Connecticut got #1 Stewart and #2 Moriah. Then they got Morgan Tuck, #10. That's all we needed for a NC. So a Maryland or Louisville pulling in eight kids or the like really is irrelevant to who wins the whole ball of wax. You can only put five kids on the court at a time. It's all about the great player plus a couple of good supporting cast members.

So these class rankings are deeply flawed.

 

[Fightin Choke]

So Kyla Irwin is ranked #44 nationally by Blue Star? And Molly Bent is #111, I presume?

I hadn't noticed this article on Molly Bent before, but it is very revealing about her, but more about how Coach Geno and his staff recruit: How Connecticut's 2016 Recruiting Class Came To Be

"Bent was overlooked in part because she was an elite soccer player who didn't play many AAU tournaments until she decided to focus on basketball last year. Coughlin said that in his 46 years of teaching and coaching, Bent made the biggest improvement from her sophomore year to her junior year of any player he's seen. Irwin, a 6-foot-2 post from State College, Pennsylvania, was the last of six children, and playing a national AAU schedule would have been an undue strain on the family's finances...How about hearing it straight from Auriemma?

"Kyla is the kind of kid that we have taken great pride in getting over the last 30 years," he said. "She is a hard-working, high-energy kid and has skills that allow her to play more than one position."

""Geno has it right," Thomas said. "People spend thousands and thousands of dollars to travel all over the country and they really don't have to. Because [Kyla] didn't do what the so-called recruiting people said we should do, she wasn't inMi that top whatever. If you look at the McDonald's All Americans from Alyssa's class -- who made it, who didn't make it -- it's kind of scary that they don't have it right at all."

Apologies if this was given wide exposure before here.

Due to the tremendous success of his program, Geno typically doesn't have to 'settle' for recruits ranked outside the top 40. Of course he doesn't factor in the recruiting service prospect rankings, so his recruiting board may look very different from the recruit ranks provided by the major services. That said, Geno has not had much success developing high school athletes ranked outside the top 40. Since the recruiting class of 2008, here are the recruits NOT in the top 40:

2010 Michala Johnson (46th)
2010 Lauren Engeln (95th)
2011 Kiah Stokes (42nd)
2013 Saniya Chong (75th)
2016 Molly Bent (unranked, so >100)
2016 Kyla Irwin (unranked, so >100)

Obviously Kiah Stokes was successful as a very valuable role player (and in her first year in the WNBA), even though she was not a starter. The other players have not been successful yet, and of course past performance may not be an indicator of future success, so we'll see.

What's amazing to me is that UConn has only had 6 players ranked outside the top 40 in the past 9 recruiting classes. Notre Dame (who has been recruiting quite well recently) has had 12 in that time period:

2008 Natalie Novosel (46th)
2008 Erica Solomon (73rd)
2008 Frederica Miller (unranked, so >100)
2008 Kellie Watson (unranked, so >100)
2009 Kaila Turner (unranked, so >100)
2010 Ariel Braker (unranked, so >100)
2011 Madison Cable (52nd)
2011 Whitney Holloway (unranked, so >100)
2011 Markisha Wright (unranked, so >100)
2012 Hannah Huffman (52nd)
2013 Diamond Thompson (unranked, so >100)
2014 Mychal Johnson (81st)

 

[Orangutan]

ND's class is the Gatorade Player of the Year plus the Naismith Player of the Year and is ranked 14th. What a joke. If you're going to put out rankings that are so foolish on their face, why even bother?

 

[Dillon77]

So Kyla Irwin is ranked #44 nationally by Blue Star? And Molly Bent is #111, I presume?

I hadn't noticed this article on Molly Bent before, but it is very revealing about her, but more about how Coach Geno and his staff recruit: How Connecticut's 2016 Recruiting Class Came To Be

"Bent was overlooked in part because she was an elite soccer player who didn't play many AAU tournaments until she decided to focus on basketball last year. Coughlin said that in his 46 years of teaching and coaching, Bent made the biggest improvement from her sophomore year to her junior year of any player he's seen. Irwin, a 6-foot-2 post from State College, Pennsylvania, was the last of six children, and playing a national AAU schedule would have been an undue strain on the family's finances...How about hearing it straight from Auriemma?

"Kyla is the kind of kid that we have taken great pride in getting over the last 30 years," he said. "She is a hard-working, high-energy kid and has skills that allow her to play more than one position."

""Geno has it right," Thomas said. "People spend thousands and thousands of dollars to travel all over the country and they really don't have to. Because [Kyla] didn't do what the so-called recruiting people said we should do, she wasn't in that top whatever. If you look at the McDonald's All Americans from Alyssa's class -- who made it, who didn't make it -- it's kind of scary that they don't have it right at all."

Apologies if this was given wide exposure before here.

No apologies necessary...good input.

I also like -- a lot -- that Bent was playing another sport....great for a change of pace and perspective. While all sports have a need for good footwork, the focus on ball-handling for soccer obvious shifts downward. That can only help on the hardwood, particularly for a person who is a bit taller than the average soccer player. The endurance and burst speed used in both sports are complementary.

To keep on thread...this won't be picked up in a basketball-rating service, but it would catch my attention as a coach, as it did, since I coached soccer for 10+ years and still (try to) play hoops.

 

[UcMiami]

Due to the tremendous success of his program, Geno typically doesn't have to 'settle' for recruits ranked outside the top 40. Of course he doesn't factor in the recruiting service prospect rankings, so his recruiting board may look very different from the recruit ranks provided by the major services. That said, Geno has not had much success developing high school athletes ranked outside the top 40. Since the recruiting class of 2008, here are the recruits NOT in the top 40:

2010 Michala Johnson (46th)
2010 Lauren Engeln (95th)
2011 Kiah Stokes (42nd)
2013 Saniya Chong (75th)
2016 Molly Bent (unranked, so >100)
2016 Kyla Irwin (unranked, so >100)

Obviously Kiah Stokes was successful as a very valuable role player (and in her first year in the WNBA), even though she was not a starter. The other players have not been successful yet, and of course past performance may not be an indicator of future success, so we'll see.

What's amazing to me is that UConn has only had 6 players ranked outside the top 40 in the past 9 recruiting classes. Notre Dame (who has been recruiting quite well recently) has had 12 in that time period:

2008 Natalie Novosel (46th)
2008 Erica Solomon (73rd)
2008 Frederica Miller (unranked, so >100)
2008 Kellie Watson (unranked, so >100)
2009 Kaila Turner (unranked, so >100)
2010 Ariel Braker (unranked, so >100)
2011 Madison Cable (52nd)
2011 Whitney Holloway (unranked, so >100)
2011 Markisha Wright (unranked, so >100)
2012 Hannah Huffman (52nd)
2013 Diamond Thompson (unranked, so >100)
2014 Mychal Johnson (81st)

Part of the issue with 'developing' and 'analyzing' players is who else is on the team - comparing to Nurse and Jefferson and Stewart and Tuck, Chong and Ekmark and Stokes are a step down, but in their own right are quite good - just not as good as their teammates.

 

[Charliebball]

No apologies necessary...good input.

I also like -- a lot -- that Bent was playing another sport....great for a change of pace and perspective. While all sports have a need for good footwork, the focus on ball-handling for soccer obvious shifts downward. That can only help on the hardwood, particularly for a person who is a bit taller than the average soccer player. The endurance and burst speed used in both sports are complementary.

To keep on thread...this won't be picked up in a basketball-rating service, but it would catch my attention as a coach, as it did, since I coached soccer for 10+ years and still (try to) play hoops.

It's going to be quite interesting to see how Bent and Irwin develop...............I simply can't tell if they are going to be truly useful players or simply bench sitters during their time at UConn. I am certainly hoping they live up to the promise heaped on them by the UConn coaches....................if that turns out to be the case then they were absolute steals..............................

 

[Dillon77]

I agree with you that small classes of quality are usually far more valuable than large classes of mediocrity, especially for top 25 teams. That's why I am so stunned that Jeff Walz is still casting such a wide net, as he is successful enough in recruiting that he should be more selective. Sure, he has a better chance of finding a diamond in the rough if he over-recruits, but that will probably come back to bite him on the butt at some point. I hear that he's a nice guy and I think (hope) he will be more selective in his recruiting going forward.

I thought about your point considering need, and I realize it would be very hard for analysts to include that in some quantitative ranking. Still, it's very important for coaches to balance their classes, and it appears that Baylor is flush with posts and Notre Dame is flush with perimeter players. I'm sure that a large part of that is emphasis by the coaches (McGraw loves her guards), but I know that Muffet wanted Cox, and she would have helped the Irish a lot more than she will help the Bears simply because of team need.

Choke..thanks for starting this thread and putting out some very interesting posts.

Your second paragraph here -- "Still, it's very important for coaches to balance their classes...and she would have helped the Irish a lot more than she will the Bears simply because of team need." -- caught my attention.

Muffet is on record as saying that she recruits to fill the needs of her roster and I think you can assume that's "as she deems fit."

You're right, she loves her guards, wings, which fit in that two forward/big system that features ball movement, cuts to the basket and open shots, many of which are long range. So, she's looking for a certain type of big and all indications was she wanted Cox to join Boley and Young. (Apparently, Joyner Holmes was also targeted but it seemed Texas was the landing spot there for awhile.) So, when MM couldn't get what she wanted on the big side to fit in with those two excellent gets and fits for the team, she stopped. Whether that means it's a 14 or 3 or 4 in rankings is probably a bit irrelevant to her (save for spinning by Chris Masters that helps Niele makes preliminary calls down the road) compared to having Cox or Holmes on the floor to work with Boley and Young (as well as Patberg) as newbies to the Irish in the fall.

(Out there thought....could the services (which are run by certain folks) maybe ratet schools like ND or UConn lower for what they didn't get, knowing both schools were in pursuit of a Cox? Who knows?)

Was it a calculated risk for MM not getting another big with this class? We'll see, but it looks like she's going to take a roll of the dice to go with what she has (Turner-Westbeld-Boley-Nelson) then go after more forwards and a guard in 2017. If she gets her quota, it will be interesting to see what the ranking services have to say vis-a-vis having "just" two studs.

 

[BobbyJ]

ND's class is the Gatorade Player of the Year plus the Naismith Player of the Year and is ranked 14th. What a joke. If you're going to put out rankings that are so foolish on their face, why even bother?

You're exactly right. Just a bunch of wasted time and meaningless numbers.

 

[EricLA]

FWIW I find the class rankings to be pretty much useless, except for schools who want to crow about "We got the #1 class" (or whatever). To have Oregon at #5 in spite of not a single player better than #70 is kind of silly IMHO. I would take a class of 2 (as in Maya #1 and Dixon about #20) every day of the week (and twice on Sunday) over ANY other class period. Any time you land the #1,2 or 3 kid (especially if they are THAT good), it's light years better than even a team who gets 5 kids ranked 20-30.

When ranking classes, you ought to HEAVILY weight the top 3 kids by a TON, then weight slightly less kids 4-5, and 6-10. But bottom line, for the teams who landed players like Cox, Dangerfield and Holmes - that's way better than Oregon, Iowa and Florida State, none of who landed a single kid better than #20...

 

[Sluconn Husky]

If Blue Star had ranked Oregon's players like ESPN did their ranking would make sense. ESPN has Sierra Campusano 14th while Blue Star has her 181st. Not sure how to explain the enormous discrepancy.

 

[TitleTown]

Due to the tremendous success of his program, Geno typically doesn't have to 'settle' for recruits ranked outside the top 40. Of course he doesn't factor in the recruiting service prospect rankings, so his recruiting board may look very different from the recruit ranks provided by the major services. That said, Geno has not had much success developing high school athletes ranked outside the top 40. Since the recruiting class of 2008, here are the recruits NOT in the top 40:

2010 Michala Johnson (46th)
2010 Lauren Engeln (95th)
2011 Kiah Stokes (42nd)
2013 Saniya Chong (75th)
2016 Molly Bent (unranked, so >100)
2016 Kyla Irwin (unranked, so >100)

Obviously Kiah Stokes was successful as a very valuable role player (and in her first year in the WNBA), even though she was not a starter. The other players have not been successful yet, and of course past performance may not be an indicator of future success, so we'll see.

What's amazing to me is that UConn has only had 6 players ranked outside the top 40 in the past 9 recruiting classes. Notre Dame (who has been recruiting quite well recently) has had 12 in that time period:

2008 Natalie Novosel (46th)
2008 Erica Solomon (73rd)
2008 Frederica Miller (unranked, so >100)
2008 Kellie Watson (unranked, so >100)
2009 Kaila Turner (unranked, so >100)
2010 Ariel Braker (unranked, so >100)
2011 Madison Cable (52nd)
2011 Whitney Holloway (unranked, so >100)
2011 Markisha Wright (unranked, so >100)
2012 Hannah Huffman (52nd)
2013 Diamond Thompson (unranked, so >100)
2014 Mychal Johnson (81st)

Geno doesn't use every single available scholarship like most schools do so therefore UConn is not going to have many kids outside of the 40s.

 

[BobbyJ]

If Blue Star had ranked Oregon's players like ESPN did their ranking would make sense. ESPN has Sierra Campusano 14th while Blue Star has her 181st. Not sure how to explain the enormous discrepancy.

She probably doesn't pay to go to Blue Star camps.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Geno doesn't use every single available scholarship like most schools do so therefore UConn is not going to have many kids outside of the 40s.

Muffet doesn't use every scholarship either. She recruited all those players ranked over 40 because that's all she could get in those years. Now that Notre Dame has established itself as an elite team in WCBB, she is being far more selective. Note that there was only one player per year out of the top 40 in years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and there have been no players ranked higher than 40th in 2015 and 2016. Right now Notre Dame has only 11 players on the roster for next season.

 

[Dillon77]

So, I was just zipping through that Blue Star list and "Iowa" caught my attention at #7. Hmmm, that's a move up for the Hawkeyes.
The reason for the move north was Kathleen Doyle, Ms. Illinois, decided to attend there after decommitting from Nebraska earlier in the spring.
No huge superstars, but I think one of the other four recruits was a Ms. Iowa and they're joining 4 returning starters.
With the ACC-Big 1G game of ND-Iowa, we'll see how the Hawkeyes -- who made the WNIT last year -- are shaping up. So that leaves
Mi'Cole Cayton, the other Nebraska decommit, and one Sabrina Ionescu for the Top 100 Hoopgurlz non-signees.

Hawkeyes Add Illinois Miss Basketball

 

[Carnac]

Of course it's not really about the recruit rankings, it's about what you do with them. 11 NC vs. 1 (by default). Give me Geno, and it's not even close!

I agree. With these rankings posted, which of these teams make the cut to this year's final four? Lately, having a top ranked recruiting class has not translated into going deep into the next season's NCAA tournament.
Will that change this year? How much of an impact (if any) will these freshmen recruits make to the overall success of their teams this upcoming season? Who do YOU think will get their ticket punched to the final 4 in Dallas next year?