|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 7, 2020 15:24:11 GMT -8
The espnW rankings have been run by Dan Olson over the past few years (hence the (Olson) after player evals) who also owns his own scouting report, Collegiate Girls Basketball Report.
That will change tomorrow, as Premier Basketball will take over at espnW. Will be interesting to see where Talia and Greta land.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 8, 2020 5:55:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Sept 8, 2020 6:48:15 GMT -8
Some interesting items jump out at me....
3 of top 4 players in the country sign with South Carolina...
4 of top 20 sign with North Carolina...
8 of top 20 sign with either South Carolina or North Carolina.....
I have no idea about the "accuracy" of this ranking of America's top h.s. WBB players.....But it's interesting...More later....
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Sept 8, 2020 8:09:49 GMT -8
Also, USC picks off two top Southern Cal kids - # 21 & # 27........
Good school, weak WBB program....Good location, average coach. Recruiting is tough to figure.
USC is doing the same thing Arizona did a few years back - - recruiting top players in back to back classes....
This should pay solid dividends in '22 & '23.....
Rueck has a tough job!!!
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbk on Sept 8, 2020 15:15:51 GMT -8
Olson was outstanding. Went to So many games. Traveling most of the year HS and Travel. So rankings are now east coast bias?
|
|
|
|
Post by brettmp029 on Sept 8, 2020 19:50:21 GMT -8
It looks that way, but Premier is based out of Texas I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 9, 2020 13:08:22 GMT -8
When I first read beaverwbb's post, I looked at Hoopgurlz before it was 'updated' to reflect the change. At that time, Greta and Talia were listed as 6 and 8, and presumably would have been McDonald's All Americans. Now they're 25 and 32. Nothing changed in 24 hours for them or for any of the others ranked, so it really illustrates the subjectivity of the whole exercise. Are they really among the top 10 in their class? Or are they, in reality, nowhere close to that? I have no idea.
But what do you diehards think? Which is the best ranking service?
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 9, 2020 14:07:12 GMT -8
So, the scouts are looking at ~300 girls, they get to watch them play three or four times each (not directly head-to-head, but on teams of varying strength against opponents of similarly varying strength), and they are supposed to rank them in order according to how they expect them to develop and perform at the college level.
Good luck with that.
Tell you what . . . give me your ranking of the 100 best restaurants where you live. It's a considerably easier task, I'd say. You don't have to factor in the variable competition or guess how a player will respond to college coaching. I imagine that you'll be pretty confident of your first couple picks, but once you get past the standouts you'll find your list as fluid as a Syd Wiese free throw. You have to ponder - does McDonald's breakfast make up for their burgers . . . how far do we dock Buffalo Wild Wings for calling chicken nuggets, "boneless wings".
It's not that your list is going to be "wrong". You'll be pretty confident that your #1 is better than your #10, which will be better than your #100, which will be better than your #300. But you won't be all that sure about comparing #20 with #40. And when someone else rates your #10 as #30, you probably will just shrug and say, "they must not like mustard on their burgers".
In sum, I don't think there is a dime's worth of difference among the services. They are just catching girls on different days, applying slightly different criteria, and coming up with modestly different lists. They are all good at what they do and equally worth reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Sept 9, 2020 17:40:04 GMT -8
Except some services demand $900 for an evaluation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Sept 9, 2020 21:12:22 GMT -8
So, the scouts are looking at ~300 girls, they get to watch them play three or four times each (not directly head-to-head, but on teams of varying strength against opponents of similarly varying strength), and they are supposed to rank them in order according to how they expect them to develop and perform at the college level. Good luck with that. Tell you what . . . give me your ranking of the 100 best restaurants where you live. It's a considerably easier task, I'd say. You don't have to factor in the variable competition or guess how a player will respond to college coaching. I imagine that you'll be pretty confident of your first couple picks, but once you get past the standouts you'll find your list as fluid as a Syd Wiese free throw. You have to ponder - does McDonald's breakfast make up for their burgers . . . how far do we dock Buffalo Wild Wings for calling chicken nuggets, "boneless wings". It's not that your list is going to be "wrong". You'll be pretty confident that your #1 is better than your #10, which will be better than your #100, which will be better than your #300. But you won't be all that sure about comparing #20 with #40. And when someone else rates your #10 as #30, you probably will just shrug and say, "they must not like mustard on their burgers". In sum, I don't think there is a dime's worth of difference among the services. They are just catching girls on different days, applying slightly different criteria, and coming up with modestly different lists. They are all good at what they do and equally worth reading. I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Rankings are fun, and the 'experts' do a good job, but deciding between who is the 5th best player, and who is the 25th best player isn't as cut and dried as we tend to believe. And that doesn't even include how the player fits into the team they are joining. |
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Sept 10, 2020 7:42:25 GMT -8
I think rmancarl makes a really good point when he talks about how the player fits into the team (its coach and its system) they are joining.
There is the issue of "personality" fit - when the kid must adapt to the team emotionally and mentally..And a lot of people emphasize this kind of "fit".
But more importantly (I think) is the "skill set" fit. For example, on Rueck's teams you must excel at setting screens, at overhead passing when both feet are on the floor, and to hit an open shot created by the pass (in contrast to a shot one creates on her own). Players who excel in these skills are at the top of Rueck's recruiting list. As a result, he might be FAR more interested in a #35 player high in these skills, than a #10 player not so high....
Shifting gears: A point not mentioned thus far about recruiting services is how much they are influenced by the actions of the U programs themselves.
For example, if UConn offers a kid ranked at #30, that kid will automatically get a bump up to #15, or so, because they know if the entire staff at UConn likes a players, there is a VERY good chance she is really a good one. When a college offers they have seen the kid many times, far more than the Service that must rank 200 - 300 kids spread throughout the country.
Same thing now happens with Rueck and OSU. As soon as the Beavs offer a kid she will get an upward tick, SS from Georgia is a good example...
That's enough of this for now...More later. Right now, I can smell smoke....
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
beav74
Freshman
Posts: 703
Grad Year: OSU 1974
|
Post by beav74 on Sept 10, 2020 8:40:29 GMT -8
In football... I’ve seen recruits to some schools being a 3* then they sign with a USC or lets say Alabama and they’re all of a sudden a 4*.
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Sept 10, 2020 9:46:00 GMT -8
beav74 - Same idea, same concept. And it makes sense.
USC & Alabama have a lot of premiere players to choose from - and when they offer a kid it means they are convinced he's worth the schollie. Rough parallel: when Buffet announces he's going to invest in a stock, other brokers will up their assessment of it because they know full well that Buffet has done his due diligence.
If I ran a Scouting Service, in addition to my own scouting, I'd get to know every Asst. Coach I could find and talk with them about who they value and why....It makes sense.
Shifting gears: There is nothing in the videos I have seen, or in the feedback I have received from coaches who have watched her play, that makes me think Talia is a National Top 10 player....
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by brettmp029 on Sept 10, 2020 10:47:00 GMT -8
Players rankings vary depending on what AAU event they are part of too. If a service has their own events/tournaments the players on teams that are part of these events generally get a more favorable rating. Is it because of the money they pay or their scouts are seeing certain players more frequently? Blue Star is a good example of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Sept 10, 2020 13:11:33 GMT -8
beav74 - Same idea, same concept. And it makes sense. USC & Alabama have a lot of premiere players to choose from - and when they offer a kid it means they are convinced he's worth the schollie. Rough parallel: when Buffet announces he's going to invest in a stock, other brokers will up their assessment of it because they know full well that Buffet has done his due diligence. If I ran a Scouting Service, in addition to my own scouting, I'd get to know every Asst. Coach I could find and talk with them about who they value and why....It makes sense. Shifting gears: There is nothing in the videos I have seen, or in the feedback I have received from coaches who have watched her play, that makes me think Talia is a National Top 10 player.... GO BEAVS!! Have to agree that of the videos I have watched of Talia, I don't see a TOP 10 player. However, if our coaches believe in Talia, then I need to believe in Talia becoming a significant contributor to OSU WBB. |
|
