Regarding why recruits might turn down UConn: this isn't going to go over well, but I've been thinking a lot lately about the attraction of the top academic schools (something we talk about especially when considering certain privates: Duke, ND, and Stanford; no offense to Baylor, but it doesn't usually get put in that cluster, though it's obviously a fine academic school). I think--I'm ducking, so throw whatever you want at me--that it really shouldn't count much in a recruit's decision.
1. What does it mean to be better academically? Frankly, it means the U.S. News and World Report rankings, which are based largely on things that don't concern elite athletes: things like amount of financial aid (all recruited D-1 athletes already get full rides); size of the library (alas, no one uses libraries much anymore); student-to-faculty ratio which is largely a manipulated number and doesn't matter, because you can always take small classes if you really want, etc.
2. Of course, some universities have "more prestigious" faculty. Undeniably, for example, Stanford's full-time faculty is the strongest of any school we usually discuss; more Noble prize winners, etc. But: a. how many classes do students take with the very top faculty; and b. do they actually learn more in those classes? These faculty are important for highly ambitious students who want to do research in their labs, write honors theses, etc. But how many top athletes do that? And even so, the same can certainly be done at schools lower in the rankings. Believe me, a 20 year student can learn just as much in the average UConn classroom as s/he can in the average Stanford classroom academically speaking; however:
3. To a very large extent, going to these schools--and why they are ranked so highly--is about networking: meeting similarly very smart and ambitious fellow students who will support your own ambitions and intellectual curiosity and be your friends for life. But great athletes with professional aspirations network with similar athletes on their teams already. Heck, it's a lot easier for athletes to discover their natural cohort than it is for non-athletes.
In sum, any honest study of course and major selection among highly competitive D-1 teams would, I'm convinced, show that these athletes don't take fullest advantage of the academic offerings of their university nor hang with the most academically ambitious students. WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T GET A GREAT EDUCATION. Education in team practice, working in groups, setting and achieving a goal, dealing with disappointment, etc. are extremely important--maybe more important--than what many non-athletes ever learn anywhere. For two decades, I've believed that Geno Auriemma is among the greatest college teachers I've ever heard of, and that learning from him for 2 hrs/day is among the highest privileges one could receive at any university, anywhere.
So, I've come to appreciate in my own terms why (say) Lou turned down Stanford and Molly turned down (likely) multiple Ivy offers: they will get, in their own way, a fantastic education, just as we know that, while the military academies can't compete on pure academics with the top (say) 15 universities, the overall education cadets and midshipmen receive is priceless. (I'm not trying to compare basketball to a military commission.)
So, frankly, I think that the vast majority (not for all, but the vast majority) of the most elite athletes should chase their dream and not let the considerations of us wannabe-jock alums who brag about silly academic rankings sway them.
