[BillBradley]

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.

I think the data shows something different. I think it shows a high correlation between having a real transcendant player on your team and winning championships/going to FF's. Look who was on some of those teams:
2012 Baylor - Brittany Griner
2013 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2014 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2015 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2016 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2017 So Carolina - A'ja Wilson
2018 - Notre Dame - Arike Ogunbawale

These players were dominant in college, even in their younger years. They are first team WNBA all-stars and likely hall of famers. The best of the best. Players like that are the difference makers. I would posit that you could take any of those players, pair them with say Lexie and Lacie, Hannah Jump, Prechtel, Wilson, Iraifen, Nivar, whoever...pick your combination of other "non top-10" Stanford recruits and you'd have a damn good chance of winning it all. 

My view on the relationship between recruiting rankings and Championships/Final-4's would be something like this:
1) There's a strong correlation between real dominant players and Championships/Final-4's. Dominant players play 30 mins/game, average 20+ points, fill up the box score in other categories (rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, etc. depending on their position), and take over games against the toughest competition. Nneka and Chiney were dominant. Maybe Cam can be truly dominant this year and deliver us a Final-4 or natty. I think there's a chance. Probably not a great chance, but given her abilities and clearly defined role, and I think enough talent around her, it wouldn't shock me. She can be that good.
2) I would make a (somewhat) educated guess that the vast majority of dominant college players had recruiting rankings of #3 or better.  We should be really sad when we miss out on one of those recruits. We need them. Unfortunately, we haven't signed a player like this since Cam. That's a big bummer. 
3) I won't debate that you need talent to win and that if you don't have a transcendant player it's great to have a bunch of incredible players. Haley, Cam, Lexie, Kianna - all highly talented. My point is that Haley and Cam were more "givens", but Lexie and Kianna were in the next group down. What were they, #8 and #14? They just have easily could have been #11 and #20. Just depends on what some scouts saw at particular AAU tournaments on given days. Looking back, they were sure off on Lexie :>
4) I think many posters view the Top-10 all in the same bucket. Like it's some magic line. That they all are likely to become incredible players. In actuality, I think the vast majority of Top-10 players simply have nice college careers and aren't ever really that impactful. I could list 20 P12 players like this off the top of my head. We shouldn't be that sad when we miss out on say a #6. The data just isn't there, IMO, to justify that 3 of them are what it takes to win championships. 
5) I really don't think you can take players #6 and #24 and conclude #6 is 18 better. To me they are all in the same bucket and I reserve judgement until I see them. I certainly don't get sad when we lose a #6. Maybe it was different 20 years ago, but today the talent goes way deeper. I don't think there's any way to know how good Ogden, Agara, and Clardy really are until we see them play. Instead of #10, #36, and #38, they might be #4, #17, and #21.

[BillBradley]

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.

I think the data shows something different. I think it shows a high correlation between having a real transcendant player on your team and winning championships/going to FF's. Look who was on some of those teams:
2012 Baylor - Brittany Griner
2013 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2014 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2015 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2016 UConn - Breanna Stewart
2017 So Carolina - A'ja Wilson
2018 - Notre Dame - Arike Ogunbawale

These players were dominant in college, even in their younger years. They are first team WNBA all-stars and likely hall of famers. The best of the best. Players like that are the difference makers. I would posit that you could take any of those players, pair them with say Lexie and Lacie, Hannah Jump, Prechtel, Wilson, Iraifen, Nivar, whoever...pick your combination of other "non top-10" Stanford recruits and you'd have a damn good chance of winning it all. 

My view on the relationship between recruiting rankings and Championships/Final-4's would be something like this:
1) There's a strong correlation between real dominant players and Championships/Final-4's. Dominant players play 30 mins/game, average 20+ points, fill up the box score in other categories (rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, etc. depending on their position), and take over games against the toughest competition. Nneka and Chiney were dominant. Maybe Cam can be truly dominant this year and deliver us a Final-4 or natty. I think there's a chance. Probably not a great chance, but given her abilities and clearly defined role, and I think enough talent around her, it wouldn't shock me. She can be that good.
2) I would make a (somewhat) educated guess that the vast majority of dominant college players had recruiting rankings of #3 or better.  We should be really sad when we miss out on one of those recruits. We need them. Unfortunately, we haven't signed a player like this since Cam. That's a big bummer. 
3) I won't debate that you need talent to win and that if you don't have a transcendant player it's great to have a bunch of incredible players. Haley, Cam, Lexie, Kianna - all highly talented. My point is that Haley and Cam were more "givens", but Lexie and Kianna were in the next group down. What were they, #8 and #14? They just have easily could have been #11 and #20. Just depends on what some scouts saw at particular AAU tournaments on given days. Looking back, they were sure off on Lexie :>
4) I think many posters view the Top-10 all in the same bucket. Like it's some magic line. That they all are likely to become incredible players. In actuality, I think the vast majority of Top-10 players simply have nice college careers and aren't ever really that impactful. I could list 20 P12 players like this off the top of my head. We shouldn't be that sad when we miss out on say a #6. The data just isn't there, IMO, to justify that 3 of them are what it takes to win championships. 
5) I really don't think you can take players #6 and #24 and conclude #6 is 18 better. To me they are all in the same bucket and I reserve judgement until I see them. I certainly don't get sad when we lose a #6. Maybe it was different 20 years ago, but today the talent goes way deeper. I don't think there's any way to know how good Ogden, Agara, and Clardy really are until we see them play. Instead of #10, #36, and #38, they might be #4, #17, and #21.