[81alum]

Great news! Hopefully Dodson, Moschkau, and our mystery #4 will follow soon. Crazy to think we haven't had a top ten recruit at guard in over a decade - since Wiggins in 2004.

That said, it's hard to know how these things shake out. Going by ESPN, Tinkle was #10 her year, Ruef #16, and Sara James #18. Incredible to think how much more we got out of folks like Lili (unranked), Bonnie (#60), and Karlie (#77). Does make you take this all with a grain of salt...

Yes.  A few years ago when I went over every recruit for a decade, it seemed as if being ranked in the top half dozen or so did pretty much guarantee three or four years as a starter, but everything else was unpredictable.  Higher rankings did tend to correlate with more time starting, but it was a loose correlation and nothing terribly firm.  The coaches never wish to say they made a "mistake" but it is very hard to know from observation alone whether a talented high school player will transition well to the college game.  Just like we can point to Lili or Bonnie who came from well down in the rankings to be important contributors, we can look at very highly rated players like Tinkle and Ruef who took years to develop into strong contributors and never became as  dominant on the offensive end as we hoped.  Or contrast Kailee (20) with Kaylee (30) or consider Taylor Rooks (18).  Beebe (11) reminds us that injuries can change everything, too.  It seems like a very inexact science.  It also must be one that is frustrating or even infuriating to the players involved.

Obviously, those coaches who can do a better job predicting college success than the rating services will tend to have better teams.  Tara has repeatedly shown that she and her staff can find talent that others relatively overlook.

This was an interesting article on the subject in its day:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/recru...id=5050890

[81alum]

Great news! Hopefully Dodson, Moschkau, and our mystery #4 will follow soon. Crazy to think we haven't had a top ten recruit at guard in over a decade - since Wiggins in 2004.

That said, it's hard to know how these things shake out. Going by ESPN, Tinkle was #10 her year, Ruef #16, and Sara James #18. Incredible to think how much more we got out of folks like Lili (unranked), Bonnie (#60), and Karlie (#77). Does make you take this all with a grain of salt...

Yes.  A few years ago when I went over every recruit for a decade, it seemed as if being ranked in the top half dozen or so did pretty much guarantee three or four years as a starter, but everything else was unpredictable.  Higher rankings did tend to correlate with more time starting, but it was a loose correlation and nothing terribly firm.  The coaches never wish to say they made a "mistake" but it is very hard to know from observation alone whether a talented high school player will transition well to the college game.  Just like we can point to Lili or Bonnie who came from well down in the rankings to be important contributors, we can look at very highly rated players like Tinkle and Ruef who took years to develop into strong contributors and never became as  dominant on the offensive end as we hoped.  Or contrast Kailee (20) with Kaylee (30) or consider Taylor Rooks (18).  Beebe (11) reminds us that injuries can change everything, too.  It seems like a very inexact science.  It also must be one that is frustrating or even infuriating to the players involved.

Obviously, those coaches who can do a better job predicting college success than the rating services will tend to have better teams.  Tara has repeatedly shown that she and her staff can find talent that others relatively overlook.

This was an interesting article on the subject in its day:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/recru...id=5050890