[2006alum]

We have no way to know if Osborne got in, no way to know what the coaches prioritized, etc., etc.  There is always that maybe she simply liked UCLA better.  She is from that area, after all.  The last player in the class to commit was Jones, correct?  So maybe it was Jones vs Osborne, which I doubt and anyway, who cares?  If Osborne was on our team, she probably doesn't have the stats she has now given who she would be competing with for playing time.  Also keep in mind that recruiting is not a perfect science.  Nobody knows for sure what they will get until a player is playing in college, or how they will develop in their career.  I just don't see the point of this, and it seems unfair to Hannah Jump, who contributes and who has worked quite hard to get into the best shape possible.  I guess since I don't like this I should butt out, which I will, but I finally felt the need to say something.

Great post. I'm glad you spoke up.

Totally agree. Well said -- there is always so much we don't know.

+3. Not sure if this OP was the one who posted before, but in the fall someone posted a similar Jump vs. Osborne gripe and we had literally the exact same debate, and I made a version of the same point. At the time Jump committed almost no one had heard of Brett Kavanaugh, Alexandria Orcasio Cortez, or a coronavirus. The sell by date on Monday morning recruit coordinating is at least 2 years past date here. Mamlet is even more ancient history. Let's move on, please.

Also: every team needs a star. Amber Espinoza Hunter was essentially kicked off the UConn team fall of her freshman year, she then transferred to Miss St. where she eventually lost her starting spot, and then transferred again to Seton Hall, where she's now scoring 30 points a game. One data point suggests she's a problem child, one that she's a fine but forgettable player, and one that she's the One That Got Away. It's easy to come up with lovely counterfactuals when you have no idea what the actual reality would have been.

[2006alum]

We have no way to know if Osborne got in, no way to know what the coaches prioritized, etc., etc.  There is always that maybe she simply liked UCLA better.  She is from that area, after all.  The last player in the class to commit was Jones, correct?  So maybe it was Jones vs Osborne, which I doubt and anyway, who cares?  If Osborne was on our team, she probably doesn't have the stats she has now given who she would be competing with for playing time.  Also keep in mind that recruiting is not a perfect science.  Nobody knows for sure what they will get until a player is playing in college, or how they will develop in their career.  I just don't see the point of this, and it seems unfair to Hannah Jump, who contributes and who has worked quite hard to get into the best shape possible.  I guess since I don't like this I should butt out, which I will, but I finally felt the need to say something.

Great post. I'm glad you spoke up.

Totally agree. Well said -- there is always so much we don't know.

+3. Not sure if this OP was the one who posted before, but in the fall someone posted a similar Jump vs. Osborne gripe and we had literally the exact same debate, and I made a version of the same point. At the time Jump committed almost no one had heard of Brett Kavanaugh, Alexandria Orcasio Cortez, or a coronavirus. The sell by date on Monday morning recruit coordinating is at least 2 years past date here. Mamlet is even more ancient history. Let's move on, please.

Also: every team needs a star. Amber Espinoza Hunter was essentially kicked off the UConn team fall of her freshman year, she then transferred to Miss St. where she eventually lost her starting spot, and then transferred again to Seton Hall, where she's now scoring 30 points a game. One data point suggests she's a problem child, one that she's a fine but forgettable player, and one that she's the One That Got Away. It's easy to come up with lovely counterfactuals when you have no idea what the actual reality would have been.