[Mudhead]

1700253086[/url]']

1700223530[/url]']

1700200795[/url]']

1700199160[/url]']

1700185899[/url]']
OTOH we did have a WVB MB transfer recently who got into grad school on her own. The real question is, are there enough more like her to target as recruits?

There aren't many like her (Madeleine Gates). Stanford was her dream school, but there wasn't room for her in the amazing WVB class that included Plummer, Gray, Hentz, Fitzmorris, and the Keefe twins. So she went to UCLA, finished her undergrad in 3 years, got admitted to Stanford grad school, and joined the team for what would have been her senior year. And she was a great addition and became a starter.

That's correct plus I read she has a genius IQ.  I would guess there are some out there with a similar combination of talents.  Maybe some ACC wbb players might be inspired to look at Stanford in future years for grad school.

And PalmTree, it sounds like the professors and department administrators who evaluate applications for their major don't put too much weight on an applicant being able to bounce a basketball.

I have no doubt you are right re attitude toward the importance of understanding the physics of a bouncing basketball which eventually goes through the hoop to graduate work. But that could change. We no longer insist on “the best and brightest” in our graduate admissions. We now place DEI aspects of an applicant above or equal to  undergraduate academic success in importance for being admitted.  Many bb applicants , say from an Ivy or with good grades from good schools would have the DEI attributes.  

I’m not ready to give up on this avenue of recruiting. IT will take some educating , some cajoling and maybe even some leadership .to get admissions folks to understand this logical adder To DEI goals.

Gerhardt Caspar once likened trying to get groups of faculty to agree to something was like herding cats - good luck with that. Also, I really don't buy that DEI has eroded pursuit of the "best and brightest" - not sure where that's coming from.

The thought is that once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. You may have the best and brightest who are also legacies or the best and the brightest who meet your DEI specs but not just the plain best and brightest. I’m not arguing for against a broadened criteria just saying that once you use it you are moving away from just the best and brightest regardless of who parents are, who,gave money or the race, ethnicity and gender of the applicant .  Since we do those things and since some some athletes will have those credentials, why not also recognize that the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics?

[Mudhead]

1700253086[/url]']

1700223530[/url]']

1700200795[/url]']

1700199160[/url]']

1700185899[/url]']
OTOH we did have a WVB MB transfer recently who got into grad school on her own. The real question is, are there enough more like her to target as recruits?

There aren't many like her (Madeleine Gates). Stanford was her dream school, but there wasn't room for her in the amazing WVB class that included Plummer, Gray, Hentz, Fitzmorris, and the Keefe twins. So she went to UCLA, finished her undergrad in 3 years, got admitted to Stanford grad school, and joined the team for what would have been her senior year. And she was a great addition and became a starter.

That's correct plus I read she has a genius IQ.  I would guess there are some out there with a similar combination of talents.  Maybe some ACC wbb players might be inspired to look at Stanford in future years for grad school.

And PalmTree, it sounds like the professors and department administrators who evaluate applications for their major don't put too much weight on an applicant being able to bounce a basketball.

I have no doubt you are right re attitude toward the importance of understanding the physics of a bouncing basketball which eventually goes through the hoop to graduate work. But that could change. We no longer insist on “the best and brightest” in our graduate admissions. We now place DEI aspects of an applicant above or equal to  undergraduate academic success in importance for being admitted.  Many bb applicants , say from an Ivy or with good grades from good schools would have the DEI attributes.  

I’m not ready to give up on this avenue of recruiting. IT will take some educating , some cajoling and maybe even some leadership .to get admissions folks to understand this logical adder To DEI goals.

Gerhardt Caspar once likened trying to get groups of faculty to agree to something was like herding cats - good luck with that. Also, I really don't buy that DEI has eroded pursuit of the "best and brightest" - not sure where that's coming from.

The thought is that once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. You may have the best and brightest who are also legacies or the best and the brightest who meet your DEI specs but not just the plain best and brightest. I’m not arguing for against a broadened criteria just saying that once you use it you are moving away from just the best and brightest regardless of who parents are, who,gave money or the race, ethnicity and gender of the applicant .  Since we do those things and since some some athletes will have those credentials, why not also recognize that the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics?

[Goose]

The thought is that once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. You may have the best and brightest who are also legacies or the best and the brightest who meet your DEI specs but not just the plain best and brightest. I’m not arguing for against a broadened criteria just saying that once you use it you are moving away from just the best and brightest regardless of who parents are, who,gave money or the race, ethnicity and gender of the applicant .  Since we do those things and since some some athletes will have those credentials, why not also recognize that the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics?

I thing the argument is that while the undergraduate admissions process explicitly takes these other factors into account and awards "points" to them, the faculty committees that decide graduate admissions generally do not. There may be some faculty members that are more aware of these factors than others. However, IMO almost no faculty member would agree that "the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics". They generally care not at all about college athletics.

[Goose]

The thought is that once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. You may have the best and brightest who are also legacies or the best and the brightest who meet your DEI specs but not just the plain best and brightest. I’m not arguing for against a broadened criteria just saying that once you use it you are moving away from just the best and brightest regardless of who parents are, who,gave money or the race, ethnicity and gender of the applicant .  Since we do those things and since some some athletes will have those credentials, why not also recognize that the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics?

I thing the argument is that while the undergraduate admissions process explicitly takes these other factors into account and awards "points" to them, the faculty committees that decide graduate admissions generally do not. There may be some faculty members that are more aware of these factors than others. However, IMO almost no faculty member would agree that "the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics". They generally care not at all about college athletics.

[oldalum]

[ once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. 

 "proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests" is probably the most quantifiable, readily available standard for identifying "the best and the brightest", but whether it is the best measure seems to me at least debatable (there is some circularity to it) and depends in part on the mission of the organization. Many medical schools, for example, have realized that admitting only the "academic" best and the brightest is not adequately fulfilling the medical needs of the society.

[oldalum]

[ once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. 

 "proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests" is probably the most quantifiable, readily available standard for identifying "the best and the brightest", but whether it is the best measure seems to me at least debatable (there is some circularity to it) and depends in part on the mission of the organization. Many medical schools, for example, have realized that admitting only the "academic" best and the brightest is not adequately fulfilling the medical needs of the society.

[BACardinal]

No incoming McDonald's All American selections for the 2024 class. When was the last year we had no McDonald's All American in a class?

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...ame-roster

[BACardinal]

No incoming McDonald's All American selections for the 2024 class. When was the last year we had no McDonald's All American in a class?

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...ame-roster

[2006alum]

No incoming McDonald's All American selections for the 2024 class. When was the last year we had no McDonald's All American in a class?

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...ame-roster

2014 (McPhee recruiting class) and 2015 (Alanna Smith recruiting class). Fortunately my prior sentence illustrates that we can have All-American-like players even when they aren't McD's AAs. BTW Lexie wasn't either. 

But yes, kind of onimuous statistics given that on a relative basis, we at times wandered through the desert between 2016 and 2019, our 2017 postseason notwithstanding.

[2006alum]

No incoming McDonald's All American selections for the 2024 class. When was the last year we had no McDonald's All American in a class?

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...ame-roster

2014 (McPhee recruiting class) and 2015 (Alanna Smith recruiting class). Fortunately my prior sentence illustrates that we can have All-American-like players even when they aren't McD's AAs. BTW Lexie wasn't either. 

But yes, kind of onimuous statistics given that on a relative basis, we at times wandered through the desert between 2016 and 2019, our 2017 postseason notwithstanding.

[Card10Fan]

This will be first recruiting class since 2015 without a McDonalds All American. The 2016 class had Wilson, Fingall, and Carrington. 2019 had Jones, Beliib, and Prechtel.  We had 8 total on last years roster alone. 

Oh well. We missed on all of our top 2024 targets. Edwards, Koval, Lee, Blakes, Cheli. 

2025 needs to be a stellar class. Swain will end up being a top 10 player. We need to lock in Jazzy Davidson. She was at LSU on an official visit this past weekend.

[Card10Fan]

This will be first recruiting class since 2015 without a McDonalds All American. The 2016 class had Wilson, Fingall, and Carrington. 2019 had Jones, Beliib, and Prechtel.  We had 8 total on last years roster alone. 

Oh well. We missed on all of our top 2024 targets. Edwards, Koval, Lee, Blakes, Cheli. 

2025 needs to be a stellar class. Swain will end up being a top 10 player. We need to lock in Jazzy Davidson. She was at LSU on an official visit this past weekend.

[BillBradley]

The recruiting winds certainly have not been in our sails as of late. Conference realignment shenanigans and NIL issues aren't helping. However, I was thinking...one advantage to not being able to get players from the transfer portal is that you can assure incoming freshmen recruits that they won't have to deal with the possibility of losing their spot to an older player who came in through the portal. That's something every recruit has to worry about at all the other top programs. 10 years ago, high school players could pull up a college roster and look at the exact list of players they'd be competing with at their position if they were to choose that particular school. Stanford is one of the few remaining places where that's still true.

[BillBradley]

The recruiting winds certainly have not been in our sails as of late. Conference realignment shenanigans and NIL issues aren't helping. However, I was thinking...one advantage to not being able to get players from the transfer portal is that you can assure incoming freshmen recruits that they won't have to deal with the possibility of losing their spot to an older player who came in through the portal. That's something every recruit has to worry about at all the other top programs. 10 years ago, high school players could pull up a college roster and look at the exact list of players they'd be competing with at their position if they were to choose that particular school. Stanford is one of the few remaining places where that's still true.

[Maple Leaf]

FYI.

Two UCLA players in the portal:

• Avary Cain (G) was recruited by Stanford.
  
• Aarnisalo (G) from Finland
  

One Duke player in the portal:

• Jennessa Cottom (F) 6-2, from Southern California
  

All of these players were Freshman this season.
Highlighted these players since they are at universities known for their academics.

[Maple Leaf]

FYI.

Two UCLA players in the portal:

• Avary Cain (G) was recruited by Stanford.
  
• Aarnisalo (G) from Finland
  

One Duke player in the portal:

• Jennessa Cottom (F) 6-2, from Southern California
  

All of these players were Freshman this season.
Highlighted these players since they are at universities known for their academics.

[Card10Fan]

Did Stanford also recruit Kendal Dudley? UCLA coming off their best season ever in program history and lose all 4 freshman and that whole recruiting class gone into the portal. Brutal. ND has at least 4 deflections. USC at least 3. Winning teams and programs and doesn’t even seem to matter in retention. 

Will Stanford target anyone now with Heals opening? What are the insiders projecting.

[Card10Fan]

Did Stanford also recruit Kendal Dudley? UCLA coming off their best season ever in program history and lose all 4 freshman and that whole recruiting class gone into the portal. Brutal. ND has at least 4 deflections. USC at least 3. Winning teams and programs and doesn’t even seem to matter in retention. 

Will Stanford target anyone now with Heals opening? What are the insiders projecting.

[BosCard]

Did Stanford also recruit Kendal Dudley? UCLA coming off their best season ever in program history and lose all 4 freshman and that whole recruiting class gone into the portal. Brutal. ND has at least 4 deflections. USC at least 3. Winning teams and programs and doesn’t even seem to matter in retention. 

Will Stanford target anyone now with Heals opening? What are the insiders projecting.

Not surprised by all 4 highly ranked UCLA recruits leaving.  Sometimes playing with a star player can be a draw but in the case of Betts, Watkins and Hidalgo it also means they get all the attention and all the NIL money and so makes sense that talented players will want their own playing time and attention.

[BosCard]

Did Stanford also recruit Kendal Dudley? UCLA coming off their best season ever in program history and lose all 4 freshman and that whole recruiting class gone into the portal. Brutal. ND has at least 4 deflections. USC at least 3. Winning teams and programs and doesn’t even seem to matter in retention. 

Will Stanford target anyone now with Heals opening? What are the insiders projecting.

Not surprised by all 4 highly ranked UCLA recruits leaving.  Sometimes playing with a star player can be a draw but in the case of Betts, Watkins and Hidalgo it also means they get all the attention and all the NIL money and so makes sense that talented players will want their own playing time and attention.

[CompSci87]

Why put these posts in an old recruiting thread? I suppose the idea is that these are high school class of 2024 players who are transferring. But I would think it makes more sense to discuss this news in a thread about current news, instead of reviving an old thread. Either "WBB Other Teams," or if you really think Stanford has interest, in the current recruiting thread.

[CompSci87]

Why put these posts in an old recruiting thread? I suppose the idea is that these are high school class of 2024 players who are transferring. But I would think it makes more sense to discuss this news in a thread about current news, instead of reviving an old thread. Either "WBB Other Teams," or if you really think Stanford has interest, in the current recruiting thread.

[WBB fan]

Why put these posts in an old recruiting thread? I suppose the idea is that these are high school class of 2024 players who are transferring. But I would think it makes more sense to discuss this news in a thread about current news, instead of reviving an old thread. Either "WBB Other Teams," or if you really think Stanford has interest, in the current recruiting thread.

Totally agree

[WBB fan]

Why put these posts in an old recruiting thread? I suppose the idea is that these are high school class of 2024 players who are transferring. But I would think it makes more sense to discuss this news in a thread about current news, instead of reviving an old thread. Either "WBB Other Teams," or if you really think Stanford has interest, in the current recruiting thread.

Totally agree