Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

I wouldn't put too much faith in recruiting rankings [especially women's BB]. Without regard to sport or gender, recruiting services are wrong as often as they are right. Even the best coaching staffs would be elated to be right 65-70% of the time.

Some of the "misses" are bad analysis, some are bad timing [in person observation when a player is sick, etc.], some are bad processes [not valuing the right characteristics in the right weighting], some are bad luck [injury], and some are bad comparisons [competition levels vary widely].

Even if rankings are correct, fit varies. Notre Dame wants to outscore people [defense is an afterthought]. Baylor and South Carolina are defensive focused. A player ideal for one system may be a bad fit for another. How can anyone fairly rank recruits under many different value systems?

One of the biggest problems is Correction Bias. If a recruiting service heavily over ranks a point guard from rural Alaska one year, they are prone to "adjust" their valuation model and can easily heavily underrank the next similar player. That is what I see happening with Dauda. The services "over ranked" a 2020 player from rural Missouri [compared to the recruiting push she got from major programs]. I think they are "correcting" expectations and Dauda is undervalued as a result. Be honest, her level of HS competition is poor and her Summer team didn't play the top level events. But she should still be a National Top Ten recruit. She is that good [skill and athleticism].

I think most services have similar values on players from the top Summer teams playing in the top Summer events. It is the other players that are difficult to rank. Covid means that the 2021 and 2022 rankings are likely to be worse than usual. Too many events not occurring, too many players missing events, etc. Fortunately for Baylor, I think the staff had already identified 98% of their targets. There are a few "wait and see" players. Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6? How much does that player improve her athleticism? A shooting guard I don't like at 5'7 I might love at 6'1. And, to be fair, some players blossom later [but that is becoming more rare with year round sport specific training].

---

UBBY said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6?

---

I wonder if this is the situation with Maddie? I think I saw updated heights of her and Sammie at 6'3 and 6'2.

---

BUatbirth said:

---

Great explanation Adriacus Peratuun...thanks!

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

I wouldn't put too much faith in recruiting rankings [especially women's BB]. Without regard to sport or gender, recruiting services are wrong as often as they are right. Even the best coaching staffs would be elated to be right 65-70% of the time.

Some of the "misses" are bad analysis, some are bad timing [in person observation when a player is sick, etc.], some are bad processes [not valuing the right characteristics in the right weighting], some are bad luck [injury], and some are bad comparisons [competition levels vary widely].

Even if rankings are correct, fit varies. Notre Dame wants to outscore people [defense is an afterthought]. Baylor and South Carolina are defensive focused. A player ideal for one system may be a bad fit for another. How can anyone fairly rank recruits under many different value systems?

One of the biggest problems is Correction Bias. If a recruiting service heavily over ranks a point guard from rural Alaska one year, they are prone to "adjust" their valuation model and can easily heavily underrank the next similar player. That is what I see happening with Dauda. The services "over ranked" a 2020 player from rural Missouri [compared to the recruiting push she got from major programs]. I think they are "correcting" expectations and Dauda is undervalued as a result. Be honest, her level of HS competition is poor and her Summer team didn't play the top level events. But she should still be a National Top Ten recruit. She is that good [skill and athleticism].

I think most services have similar values on players from the top Summer teams playing in the top Summer events. It is the other players that are difficult to rank. Covid means that the 2021 and 2022 rankings are likely to be worse than usual. Too many events not occurring, too many players missing events, etc. Fortunately for Baylor, I think the staff had already identified 98% of their targets. There are a few "wait and see" players. Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6? How much does that player improve her athleticism? A shooting guard I don't like at 5'7 I might love at 6'1. And, to be fair, some players blossom later [but that is becoming more rare with year round sport specific training].

---

DanaDane said:

---

Which misses did those recruiting services have: was it Griner? Brown? Lauren Cox? Sims? Egbo? Smith? Cooper? Mompremier (who ended up all ACC) Prince? Juicy? All were rated in the Top 30.

I'll give you Chou so far, but that sure looks much higher than "more often wrong than right" to me.

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Same class......#51-100

Find 5 players that had successful college careers.

---

UBBY said:

---

Hmmm... you may be right nationally after looking at the list but would you agree Baylor has had more hits than misses?

---

HoustonBear15 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Same class......#51-100

Find 5 players that had successful college careers.

---

Aari McDonald, Chelsea Dungee, Brittany Brewer, Bella Alarie, Kathleen Doyle.

---