[TheFarm07]

I think there's an implied conclusion in this thread that you can't win championships unless you have x number of top-y ranked recruits. I completely reject that. I find the data analysis to be too convenient. I absolutely accept that you have to have substantial talent to win. But what form does that come in? What are the pieces and how do they fit together? This notion of "we're missing out on these Top-10's so we're hosed because we'll have to settle for players in the Top-20/30/40" is pretty bogus. There are many players ranked well outside the Top-10 that are often better than the one ranked #8. I agree that the real cream-of-the-crop #1's and #2's are real difference makers (usually), but how deep do you go while still proclaiming someone is a world beater and expect them to dominate? I think I'd stop around #3. 

These recruiting rankings are highly suspect, with a lot of lingering bias from when the players were years younger, before injuries, etc. Much of the data is unreliable. Especially with the bigs, there are so many players who were unstoppable down low in high school, but just hit a wall in college. They aren't strong enough, agile enough, can't guard on the perimeter, injured, etc. It really comes down to the players themselves and how they all play together. Our last year's team of 2 #1's and a #3 (by far the best recruiting rankings we've ever had in 3 players on one team), yet they couldn't figure out how to play together. 

When we reach the Final-4 in 2026 led by #39 Chloe Clardy, I'll expect a postie:>

I looked at the starting lineups of every national champion going back to the 2011-12 Baylor team and every team during this period except this past year's LSU squad and the '18-'19 Baylor team had at least two #10 recruits (and Kalani Brown was at #11 in her class) starting in the title game. Eight of those teams had three top-10 recruits in their starting rotation.

So, while I agree being a top-ranked recruit doesn't guarantee collegiate stardom and conversely, there are others who were outside the top-10 coming out of HS that went on to have elite college careers, the general extrapolation still holds true that most college stars were highly ranked and a lower ranked recruit shooting up to become extraordinary in college is more of the exception than the rule.

[TheFarm07]

I think there's an implied conclusion in this thread that you can't win championships unless you have x number of top-y ranked recruits. I completely reject that. I find the data analysis to be too convenient. I absolutely accept that you have to have substantial talent to win. But what form does that come in? What are the pieces and how do they fit together? This notion of "we're missing out on these Top-10's so we're hosed because we'll have to settle for players in the Top-20/30/40" is pretty bogus. There are many players ranked well outside the Top-10 that are often better than the one ranked #8. I agree that the real cream-of-the-crop #1's and #2's are real difference makers (usually), but how deep do you go while still proclaiming someone is a world beater and expect them to dominate? I think I'd stop around #3. 

These recruiting rankings are highly suspect, with a lot of lingering bias from when the players were years younger, before injuries, etc. Much of the data is unreliable. Especially with the bigs, there are so many players who were unstoppable down low in high school, but just hit a wall in college. They aren't strong enough, agile enough, can't guard on the perimeter, injured, etc. It really comes down to the players themselves and how they all play together. Our last year's team of 2 #1's and a #3 (by far the best recruiting rankings we've ever had in 3 players on one team), yet they couldn't figure out how to play together. 

When we reach the Final-4 in 2026 led by #39 Chloe Clardy, I'll expect a postie:>

I looked at the starting lineups of every national champion going back to the 2011-12 Baylor team and every team during this period except this past year's LSU squad and the '18-'19 Baylor team had at least two #10 recruits (and Kalani Brown was at #11 in her class) starting in the title game. Eight of those teams had three top-10 recruits in their starting rotation.

So, while I agree being a top-ranked recruit doesn't guarantee collegiate stardom and conversely, there are others who were outside the top-10 coming out of HS that went on to have elite college careers, the general extrapolation still holds true that most college stars were highly ranked and a lower ranked recruit shooting up to become extraordinary in college is more of the exception than the rule.