[Pastor]

a lot to look forward to seeing....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruitin...id=5786979


Looks like I duplicated another thread but I\'ll leave it as the article is a good one.

[Pastor]

a lot to look forward to seeing....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruitin...id=5786979


Looks like I duplicated another thread but I\'ll leave it as the article is a good one.

[Redrum]

So other teams are achieving 30 points with two or three  15-point recruits.   We are up there with them but with seven women,  some of whom are "worth" 3 pts.     That doesn\'t seem like a top recruiting class,  it is leveraged by numbers, a artifact of an uneven recruiting cycle, yes?   Seems an odd way to claim a "top" class.  

Are these the women Tara was really amped over based on her assessment,  or does the "offer theory"  (who else wanted them) validate this as a top class.

Query:  It seems that we hardly ever hear about sweating out Door #1 for the women.   Do we just basically do a great job of vetting?  

[Redrum]

So other teams are achieving 30 points with two or three  15-point recruits.   We are up there with them but with seven women,  some of whom are "worth" 3 pts.     That doesn\'t seem like a top recruiting class,  it is leveraged by numbers, a artifact of an uneven recruiting cycle, yes?   Seems an odd way to claim a "top" class.  

Are these the women Tara was really amped over based on her assessment,  or does the "offer theory"  (who else wanted them) validate this as a top class.

Query:  It seems that we hardly ever hear about sweating out Door #1 for the women.   Do we just basically do a great job of vetting?  

[fullmetal]

I think leveraging by numbers is a valid way to boost a recruiting class ranking.  After all, you do sort of amortize your chances of having a random decommit or other sort of situation where the recruit no longer plays for the team.  You may also increase your chances of picking up a sleeper recruit.

[fullmetal]

I think leveraging by numbers is a valid way to boost a recruiting class ranking.  After all, you do sort of amortize your chances of having a random decommit or other sort of situation where the recruit no longer plays for the team.  You may also increase your chances of picking up a sleeper recruit.

[Kathy]

Query:  It seems that we hardly ever hear about sweating out Door #1 for the women.   Do we just basically do a great job of vetting?

Nah ... women are just smarter  ;)

[Kathy]

Query:  It seems that we hardly ever hear about sweating out Door #1 for the women.   Do we just basically do a great job of vetting?

Nah ... women are just smarter  ;)

[Redrum]

IIRC, there are now more women in college than men.   I think there may be something to the theory of academic motivation being more focused in women of college age than in men of college age.  

If you look at the graduation rates for athletes of college women athletes vs. males,  they are generally higher than for men,  and that edge generally is greater than you\'d expect even correcting for the losses of men who go professional before their eligibility is used up.

Which pretty much demonstrates the superiority of women.  Yup.  Maybe some rainy day I\'ll go back to check on the graduation rates of those teams that are our traditional rivals.   Those could be some fun comparisons.

[Redrum]

IIRC, there are now more women in college than men.   I think there may be something to the theory of academic motivation being more focused in women of college age than in men of college age.  

If you look at the graduation rates for athletes of college women athletes vs. males,  they are generally higher than for men,  and that edge generally is greater than you\'d expect even correcting for the losses of men who go professional before their eligibility is used up.

Which pretty much demonstrates the superiority of women.  Yup.  Maybe some rainy day I\'ll go back to check on the graduation rates of those teams that are our traditional rivals.   Those could be some fun comparisons.

[fullmetal]

Women have precious few lucrative, professional athletic options available to them after college, so it stands to reason that most women who are doing their best to earn scholarships are aiming for a degree, not a draft day payoff.

[fullmetal]

Women have precious few lucrative, professional athletic options available to them after college, so it stands to reason that most women who are doing their best to earn scholarships are aiming for a degree, not a draft day payoff.

[CompSci87]

Query:  It seems that we hardly ever hear about sweating out Door #1 for the women.  Do we just basically do a great job of vetting?  

Tara tells recruits not to announce a verbal commitment until after they have been accepted. So fans don\'t really get a chance to hear and sweat about the recruits that don\'t make door #1, except through rumor.

[CompSci87]

Query:  It seems that we hardly ever hear about sweating out Door #1 for the women.  Do we just basically do a great job of vetting?  

Tara tells recruits not to announce a verbal commitment until after they have been accepted. So fans don\'t really get a chance to hear and sweat about the recruits that don\'t make door #1, except through rumor.

[fyao]

Considering that Tara is slow to trust and doesn\'t seem to have too many problems with admissions, I would consider this recruiting class for a back-to-back national runner up to be disappointing.

Women\'s athletics aren\'t as deep as men\'s, so a say 80th ranked player in the women\'s game has a much bigger dropoff on a relative basis than in the men\'s game.  Many 4-star recruits languish on Tara\'s bench, with her short rotation.

Hopefully the top two guard recruits, the position where we are weakest, can help out.

[fyao]

Considering that Tara is slow to trust and doesn\'t seem to have too many problems with admissions, I would consider this recruiting class for a back-to-back national runner up to be disappointing.

Women\'s athletics aren\'t as deep as men\'s, so a say 80th ranked player in the women\'s game has a much bigger dropoff on a relative basis than in the men\'s game.  Many 4-star recruits languish on Tara\'s bench, with her short rotation.

Hopefully the top two guard recruits, the position where we are weakest, can help out.

[terry]

So other teams are achieving 30 points with two or three  15-point recruits.   We are up there with them but with seven women,  some of whom are "worth" 3 pts.     That doesn\'t seem like a top recruiting class,  it is leveraged by numbers, a artifact of an uneven recruiting cycle, yes?   Seems an odd way to claim a "top" class.  

These rankings don\'t really give Stanford much of a boost due to the size of the class. Counting everyone in the class, Stanford is tied for 4th. If we were to eliminate the three lowest-rated recruits and evaluate Stanford based only on its top three recruits, Stanford would be 5th. Those last three recruits make little difference in these rankings as they currently stand.

[terry]

So other teams are achieving 30 points with two or three  15-point recruits.   We are up there with them but with seven women,  some of whom are "worth" 3 pts.     That doesn\'t seem like a top recruiting class,  it is leveraged by numbers, a artifact of an uneven recruiting cycle, yes?   Seems an odd way to claim a "top" class.  

These rankings don\'t really give Stanford much of a boost due to the size of the class. Counting everyone in the class, Stanford is tied for 4th. If we were to eliminate the three lowest-rated recruits and evaluate Stanford based only on its top three recruits, Stanford would be 5th. Those last three recruits make little difference in these rankings as they currently stand.

[fyao]

So other teams are achieving 30 points with two or three  15-point recruits.   We are up there with them but with seven women,  some of whom are "worth" 3 pts.     That doesn\'t seem like a top recruiting class,  it is leveraged by numbers, a artifact of an uneven recruiting cycle, yes?   Seems an odd way to claim a "top" class.  

These rankings don\'t really give Stanford much of a boost due to the size of the class. Counting everyone in the class, Stanford is tied for 4th. If we were to eliminate the three lowest-rated recruits and evaluate Stanford based only on its top three recruits, Stanford would be 5th. Those last three recruits make little difference in these rankings as they currently stand.

Yes, but we used up say three scholarship slots on players who may never see meaningful playing time.  Since I don\'t think WBB talent is that deep, I hope Tara thinks the bottom three are good enough to be taking up spots on a national championship contender, as opposed to holding them for next year.

[fyao]

So other teams are achieving 30 points with two or three  15-point recruits.   We are up there with them but with seven women,  some of whom are "worth" 3 pts.     That doesn\'t seem like a top recruiting class,  it is leveraged by numbers, a artifact of an uneven recruiting cycle, yes?   Seems an odd way to claim a "top" class.  

These rankings don\'t really give Stanford much of a boost due to the size of the class. Counting everyone in the class, Stanford is tied for 4th. If we were to eliminate the three lowest-rated recruits and evaluate Stanford based only on its top three recruits, Stanford would be 5th. Those last three recruits make little difference in these rankings as they currently stand.

Yes, but we used up say three scholarship slots on players who may never see meaningful playing time.  Since I don\'t think WBB talent is that deep, I hope Tara thinks the bottom three are good enough to be taking up spots on a national championship contender, as opposed to holding them for next year.

[CompSci87]

Yes, but we used up say three scholarship slots on players who may never see meaningful playing time.  Since I don\'t think WBB talent is that deep, I hope Tara thinks the bottom three are good enough to be taking up spots on a national championship contender, as opposed to holding them for next year.

3 slots should be available for the 2012 class, assuming Boothe stays for her 5th year (it would be 4 if she doesn\'t) and that no one else currently in that class takes an injury redshirt and stays an extra year. As you say, WBB talent isn\'t all that deep (especially WBB talent that can get into Stanford), so why save a slot just in case the 4th best admissible prospect in 2012 might turn out to be better than the 6th best in 2011? A bird in the hand, etc.

[CompSci87]

Yes, but we used up say three scholarship slots on players who may never see meaningful playing time.  Since I don\'t think WBB talent is that deep, I hope Tara thinks the bottom three are good enough to be taking up spots on a national championship contender, as opposed to holding them for next year.

3 slots should be available for the 2012 class, assuming Boothe stays for her 5th year (it would be 4 if she doesn\'t) and that no one else currently in that class takes an injury redshirt and stays an extra year. As you say, WBB talent isn\'t all that deep (especially WBB talent that can get into Stanford), so why save a slot just in case the 4th best admissible prospect in 2012 might turn out to be better than the 6th best in 2011? A bird in the hand, etc.

[fyao]

Yes, but we used up say three scholarship slots on players who may never see meaningful playing time.  Since I don\'t think WBB talent is that deep, I hope Tara thinks the bottom three are good enough to be taking up spots on a national championship contender, as opposed to holding them for next year.

3 slots should be available for the 2012 class, assuming Boothe stays for her 5th year (it would be 4 if she doesn\'t) and that no one else currently in that class takes an injury redshirt and stays an extra year. As you say, WBB talent isn\'t all that deep (especially WBB talent that can get into Stanford), so why save a slot just in case the 4th best admissible prospect in 2012 might turn out to be better than the 6th best in 2011? A bird in the hand, etc.

Curiously, we had a somewhat similar situation with the men\'s team.  We took six players in last year\'s class, leaving us with only one slot this year.  Aside from the evenness of the classes which may balance out over time, I think the men\'s basketball team did the right thing, as it is unclear who our second recruit this year would have been and the 6th player we got last year seems to have good skills -- not to mention men\'s bb\'s historic difficulties getting enough players admitted to fill the team and the team\'s then desperate need for talent infusion.  

WBB is less clear, but hopefully Tara considered all the possibilities and felt this was the best way.  Still for a team that often uses essentially a 7 woman rotation comprised of a high proportion of 5 star recruits competing for a national championship, I consider this to be a so-so class.

[fyao]

Yes, but we used up say three scholarship slots on players who may never see meaningful playing time.  Since I don\'t think WBB talent is that deep, I hope Tara thinks the bottom three are good enough to be taking up spots on a national championship contender, as opposed to holding them for next year.

3 slots should be available for the 2012 class, assuming Boothe stays for her 5th year (it would be 4 if she doesn\'t) and that no one else currently in that class takes an injury redshirt and stays an extra year. As you say, WBB talent isn\'t all that deep (especially WBB talent that can get into Stanford), so why save a slot just in case the 4th best admissible prospect in 2012 might turn out to be better than the 6th best in 2011? A bird in the hand, etc.

Curiously, we had a somewhat similar situation with the men\'s team.  We took six players in last year\'s class, leaving us with only one slot this year.  Aside from the evenness of the classes which may balance out over time, I think the men\'s basketball team did the right thing, as it is unclear who our second recruit this year would have been and the 6th player we got last year seems to have good skills -- not to mention men\'s bb\'s historic difficulties getting enough players admitted to fill the team and the team\'s then desperate need for talent infusion.  

WBB is less clear, but hopefully Tara considered all the possibilities and felt this was the best way.  Still for a team that often uses essentially a 7 woman rotation comprised of a high proportion of 5 star recruits competing for a national championship, I consider this to be a so-so class.

[pauloalto]

A "so-so" class?

Although this class lacks a top 10 recruit, compared to many earlier classes it has a much higher average recruit rating - no one with an ESPN rating below 92. This will significantly improve our depth.

And in one bloggist\'s estimate Stanford has the top class in the nation relative to "who did the best jobs of signing players to address their needs and put them in contention to move up or stay atop of their league or the world of college basketball". (see http://floridainsider.blogspot.com/2010/...asses.html)

[pauloalto]

A "so-so" class?

Although this class lacks a top 10 recruit, compared to many earlier classes it has a much higher average recruit rating - no one with an ESPN rating below 92. This will significantly improve our depth.

And in one bloggist\'s estimate Stanford has the top class in the nation relative to "who did the best jobs of signing players to address their needs and put them in contention to move up or stay atop of their league or the world of college basketball". (see http://floridainsider.blogspot.com/2010/...asses.html)

[Mick]

IIRC, there are now more women in college than men.   I think there may be something to the theory of academic motivation being more focused in women of college age than in men of college age.  

If you look at the graduation rates for athletes of college women athletes vs. males,  they are generally higher than for men,  and that edge generally is greater than you\'d expect even correcting for the losses of men who go professional before their eligibility is used up.

Which pretty much demonstrates the superiority of women.  Yup.  Maybe some rainy day I\'ll go back to check on the graduation rates of those teams that are our traditional rivals.   Those could be some fun comparisons.

Late last year my son was taking the SAT and ACT test scores, so I was looking up the statistics online.  The first table I came to was a 2008 table of SAT test scores broken out by gender.  Just for fun, I looked at the 2400 line.  167 men, 127 women.  Funny.  Looked at 2390.  65 men, 60 women.  2380.  135 men, 128 women.

There were more men at every single ten point level starting at 2400 and going down every 10 points until you hit 1950....that\'s right, more men than women scored at literally every single level for 45 levels...at which point, women started to dominate.  From 1950 down to 830, women absolutely owned the test, losing only one level.  From 820 down to 600, men own all but five of the levels.

[Mick]

IIRC, there are now more women in college than men.   I think there may be something to the theory of academic motivation being more focused in women of college age than in men of college age.  

If you look at the graduation rates for athletes of college women athletes vs. males,  they are generally higher than for men,  and that edge generally is greater than you\'d expect even correcting for the losses of men who go professional before their eligibility is used up.

Which pretty much demonstrates the superiority of women.  Yup.  Maybe some rainy day I\'ll go back to check on the graduation rates of those teams that are our traditional rivals.   Those could be some fun comparisons.

Late last year my son was taking the SAT and ACT test scores, so I was looking up the statistics online.  The first table I came to was a 2008 table of SAT test scores broken out by gender.  Just for fun, I looked at the 2400 line.  167 men, 127 women.  Funny.  Looked at 2390.  65 men, 60 women.  2380.  135 men, 128 women.

There were more men at every single ten point level starting at 2400 and going down every 10 points until you hit 1950....that\'s right, more men than women scored at literally every single level for 45 levels...at which point, women started to dominate.  From 1950 down to 830, women absolutely owned the test, losing only one level.  From 820 down to 600, men own all but five of the levels.

[Redrum]

Between men\'s and women\'s bball.   Sure, they loaded up on one class.   But the men HAD to.  They were down and without a talent infusion (hell, make that a warm body infusion) they were going to get downer.  The women were coming off a NC game with a team that has gone deep into the playoffs regularly.  

[Redrum]

Between men\'s and women\'s bball.   Sure, they loaded up on one class.   But the men HAD to.  They were down and without a talent infusion (hell, make that a warm body infusion) they were going to get downer.  The women were coming off a NC game with a team that has gone deep into the playoffs regularly.  

[Ratmandoo]

Does the women\'s team have more scholarships to give out overall than the men\'s team? I thought that was the case because of title IX but I\'m not sure.

[Ratmandoo]

Does the women\'s team have more scholarships to give out overall than the men\'s team? I thought that was the case because of title IX but I\'m not sure.

[Leftcoast]

The practice situation isn\'t as tough for the women.   Tara can usually find good male players on campus to fill any practice holes with quality competition.   The thin game time bench is another, more critical, matter.

I\'m trusting Tara on this one though ... a deep class and well-scouted class filled with both role players, missing pieces and hidden gems is well within her capability.

[Leftcoast]

The practice situation isn\'t as tough for the women.   Tara can usually find good male players on campus to fill any practice holes with quality competition.   The thin game time bench is another, more critical, matter.

I\'m trusting Tara on this one though ... a deep class and well-scouted class filled with both role players, missing pieces and hidden gems is well within her capability.