Ranking comparisons

[atlantasooner]

syb,
I think women's recruiting rankings probably have some regional bias in there.
AAU impact over the last ten years seems to have increased greatly.
Early offers from Uconn, Tenn, Stanford, ND probably put some players onto the radar.
But the top 15/20 kids are generally going to be without such biases.
I mean a girl from a Nebraska HS is in the top ten and she's going to Nebraska.

[atlantasooner]

Norm,
Mainly on the youtube clips I'm looking for the level of athleticism. How fluid an athlete the prospect appears to be. Awkward/lumbering factor. Especially with post players.

[SoonerNorm]

Originally Posted by atlantasooner

Norm,
Mainly on the youtube clips I'm looking for the level of athleticism. How fluid an athlete the prospect appears to be. Awkward/lumbering factor. Especially with post players.

You bet! I couldn't agree more.

[sybarite]

Originally Posted by atlantasooner

syb,
I think women's recruiting rankings probably have some regional bias in there.
AAU impact over the last ten years seems to have increased greatly.
Early offers from Uconn, Tenn, Stanford, ND probably put some players onto the radar.
But the top 15/20 kids are generally going to be without such biases.
I mean a girl from a Nebraska HS is in the top ten and she's going to Nebraska.

There does appear to be in the neighborhood of five to eight players who do stand out, maybe twenty-five who are probably pretty certain to end up as starters. I think there are probably two or three McDonald's All-Americans who may not see a starting role.

Kai James was a McDonald's All-American last year, and I watched her get completely outplayed by Kellogg. James hardly seemed to play at FSU when I looked at their stats. She played 11.2 minutes/game, averaged 3.8 and 3.1 reb. That's not much for a McDonald's All-American at FSU. You would think it would be at least eight or nine points and rebounds.

It does seem to me that once you get past those top 20-25, there are a lot of misses. Teams like Kansas State, Iowa State, and OSU end up pretty good, and they hardly ever get anyone ranked that highly. It is difficult to beat UConn or ND without some stars, but Duke and Tennessee can't do it with their stars. I would like to have at least two or three that were in the top twenty with some good, stable role players. That would probably make us competitive with the best.

[atlantasooner]

syb,
I think post players are probably the one area where the recruiting rankings miss the most.
They are usually projecting more on potential than actuality than the other positions.
The amazing disparity in women's hoops HS programs probably does not help either. A player like Kai has dominated in HS due to playing no one her size/athleticism in HS.
Gets to college, and struggles with the adjustment.
I see the same phenomenon in football recruiting with top OL. Top guys maxed out in size/strength never adjust to finally meeting their physical match and develop OL technique.

[sybarite]

Originally Posted by atlantasooner

syb,
I think post players are probably the one area where the recruiting rankings miss the most.
They are usually projecting more on potential than actuality than the other positions.
The amazing disparity in women's hoops HS programs probably does not help either. A player like Kai has dominated in HS due to playing no one her size/athleticism in HS.
Gets to college, and struggles with the adjustment.
I see the same phenomenon in football recruiting with top OL. Top guys maxed out in size/strength never adjust to finally meeting their physical match and develop OL technique.

This is probably true. But, I also think that there is a tendency to think that someone is quick enough to play in D-1 when they might have been in the past. You are quick, until you run into a DRob. It is also difficult to assess how someone will respond to the intensity of D-1.

[scrybe]

Some of you don't seem overly impressed, but I'd have to call our overall player rankings pretty darn good.

#3 PG (13th best player overall).
#4 G (16th best player overall).
#8 G (30th best player overall).
#6 G (20th best player overall).
#11 G (34th best player overall)
#16 PF
#16 P … and so on.

May not be quite up to UConn or ND standards, but how many schools in the country would love to have players the caliber of those on OU's roster? I believe we've gone to the FF with teams (players) that were not rated higher than this one overall. I'm sure I'll be corrected. :D

[SoonerNorm]

Originally Posted by scrybe

Some of you don't seem overly impressed, but I'd have to call our overall player rankings pretty darn good.

#3 PG (13th best player overall).
#4 G (16th best player overall).
#8 G (30th best player overall).
#6 G (20th best player overall).
#11 G (34th best player overall)
#16 PF
#16 P … and so on.

May not be quite up to UConn or ND standards, but how many schools in the country would love to have players the caliber of those on OU's roster? I believe we've gone to the FF with teams (players) that were not rated higher than this one overall. I'm sure I'll be corrected. :D

I doubt this team will make it to the final four but I sure hope you're right!

[scrybe]

Originally Posted by SoonerNorm

I doubt this team will make it to the final four but I sure hope you're right!

LOL! Not what I said (or implied), Norm. Just saying, we've been to the FF with less highly-rated players than we'll have this season.

The key, of course, includes factors such as: how well (and how fast) the players develop after they arrive here; team chemistry; having one or two really strong team leaders on the squad; et al.