[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.