[BillBradley]

In terms of star power among PAC 12 teams, Oregon is actually 2nd to Stanford

2018:  #08  Sedona PRINCE
2020:  #08  Sydney PARRISH
2020:  #11  Tehina PAOPAO
2020:  #17  Kylee WATSON
2020:  #19  Maddie SCHERR
2021:  #29  Taylor BIGBY
2019:  #36 Endyia ROGERS

And then you have 6'5 German Nyara SABALLY who was All-PAC 12 selection last season,
and 5'9 Australian transfer Ahlise HURST who is their leading 3-point shotmaker this season,
averaging 2.6 3-pt made/game at a 40% clip.

In a way, Stanford is lucky that post players BRINK and PRECHTEL were on health protocol
last week and will most likely be able to play.  If not, that's going to be a problem
vs 6'7 PRINCE and 6'5 SABALLY.

Question, as I see folks often quote player recruiting rankings. How much weight should the collective senior year of high school recruiting rankings weigh in determining a team's current talent level? For sure you can take a Bueckers or a Brink or a Betts and it's obvious their talent level greatly exceeds their peers, they are likely future pros, and that can be determined early on. But is it even realistic to compare the 20th rated player, the 40th rated player, and the 60th rated player, especially after 2 or 3 years in college? Should we ask Ja Morant and Steph Curry when they came out of high school what they think about recruiting rankings? Are they just outliers or are there tons of those stories?  As a subscriber to a couple recruiting services, I can tell you that there's a lot of blatantly-incorrect and stale data out there. A kid who's a top recruit in 9th grade tends to stay rated highly for a long time. Especially if they commit early, many keep their "4-star" or even "5-star" rating, even after significant decline in performance (i.e. due to injury). We've seen many lower rated players overperform and many higher rated players underperform. Josh Huestis (3-star) and Zaire Williams (5-Star) are some examples on the men's side. 

Sometimes I really wonder if coaches care about these ratings at all. They probably use the recruiting services as a starting point, but I doubt they look back once they start evaluating the players.

I wonder if anyone has done any analysis on this topic. Meaning - here are a list of players and their recruiting rating as they entered college and here's how they actually performed. 

Also not trying to single you out here @joemontes. I just put it in this thread as the question occurred to me while reading your post.

[BillBradley]

In terms of star power among PAC 12 teams, Oregon is actually 2nd to Stanford

2018:  #08  Sedona PRINCE
2020:  #08  Sydney PARRISH
2020:  #11  Tehina PAOPAO
2020:  #17  Kylee WATSON
2020:  #19  Maddie SCHERR
2021:  #29  Taylor BIGBY
2019:  #36 Endyia ROGERS

And then you have 6'5 German Nyara SABALLY who was All-PAC 12 selection last season,
and 5'9 Australian transfer Ahlise HURST who is their leading 3-point shotmaker this season,
averaging 2.6 3-pt made/game at a 40% clip.

In a way, Stanford is lucky that post players BRINK and PRECHTEL were on health protocol
last week and will most likely be able to play.  If not, that's going to be a problem
vs 6'7 PRINCE and 6'5 SABALLY.

Question, as I see folks often quote player recruiting rankings. How much weight should the collective senior year of high school recruiting rankings weigh in determining a team's current talent level? For sure you can take a Bueckers or a Brink or a Betts and it's obvious their talent level greatly exceeds their peers, they are likely future pros, and that can be determined early on. But is it even realistic to compare the 20th rated player, the 40th rated player, and the 60th rated player, especially after 2 or 3 years in college? Should we ask Ja Morant and Steph Curry when they came out of high school what they think about recruiting rankings? Are they just outliers or are there tons of those stories?  As a subscriber to a couple recruiting services, I can tell you that there's a lot of blatantly-incorrect and stale data out there. A kid who's a top recruit in 9th grade tends to stay rated highly for a long time. Especially if they commit early, many keep their "4-star" or even "5-star" rating, even after significant decline in performance (i.e. due to injury). We've seen many lower rated players overperform and many higher rated players underperform. Josh Huestis (3-star) and Zaire Williams (5-Star) are some examples on the men's side. 

Sometimes I really wonder if coaches care about these ratings at all. They probably use the recruiting services as a starting point, but I doubt they look back once they start evaluating the players.

I wonder if anyone has done any analysis on this topic. Meaning - here are a list of players and their recruiting rating as they entered college and here's how they actually performed. 

Also not trying to single you out here @joemontes. I just put it in this thread as the question occurred to me while reading your post.