ESPNW's class of 2024 recruiting rankings are out.

[CTtoSanDiego]

Sarah Strong did not put us over the top. USC stayed #1 and we came in #2 (for whatever these things are worth!)

No. 2 UConn​

Highest-ranked commit: F Sarah Strong (No. 1)

UConn has landed yet another No. 1-ranked player in a recruiting class in Strong. She is ultra-versatile at the forward spot and will stretch the floor for the Huskies with her ability to knock down long-range 3s and has an advanced quality to her passing and facilitating. Geno Auriemma also adds two perimeter players who fit the UConn style of spacing, shooting and interchangeability.

• No. 7 Allie Ziebell is a 6-foot guard who is a poised and calm competitor. She has an extremely fundamental base of skills, particularly her shot. She uses efficient dribbles to create space for her own shot or to create opportunities for teammates. Ziebell is an excellent decision-maker and reads the floor well. She was one of the youngest members of the Under-19 Women's World Cup team that won gold in Spain last summer.
• No. 11 Morgan Cheli out of Archbishop Mitty in California is a utility wing who raises the level of competitiveness on the floor when she steps in between the lines. She has a slasher game with a nice pull-up jumper and she has complemented that with an improving shot from long range.

Here's the link to the whole article: 2024 women's college basketball recruiting rankings: Final top 25 classes

 

[ec33]

Sarah Strong did not put us over the top. USC stayed #1 and we came in #2 (for whatever these things are worth!)

No. 2 UConn​

Highest-ranked commit: F Sarah Strong (No. 1)

UConn has landed yet another No. 1-ranked player in a recruiting class in Strong. She is ultra-versatile at the forward spot and will stretch the floor for the Huskies with her ability to knock down long-range 3s and has an advanced quality to her passing and facilitating. Geno Auriemma also adds two perimeter players who fit the UConn style of spacing, shooting and interchangeability.

• No. 7 Allie Ziebell is a 6-foot guard who is a poised and calm competitor. She has an extremely fundamental base of skills, particularly her shot. She uses efficient dribbles to create space for her own shot or to create opportunities for teammates. Ziebell is an excellent decision-maker and reads the floor well. She was one of the youngest members of the Under-19 Women's World Cup team that won gold in Spain last summer.
• No. 11 Morgan Cheli out of Archbishop Mitty in California is a utility wing who raises the level of competitiveness on the floor when she steps in between the lines. She has a slasher game with a nice pull-up jumper and she has complemented that with an improving shot from long range.

Here's the link to the whole article: 2024 women's college basketball recruiting rankings: Final top 25 classes

The two classes aren't all that close. I would prefer UConn's class without putting all that much thought into it.

 

[Puppy Love]

I want some of whatever the folks at ESPN are smoking.

 

[oldude]

USC is #1 because of quantity not quality. The Trojans have 6 top 100 recruits. UConn has 3. Now, you can’t play 6 freshmen at the same time. But you can play 3. So let’s see how many players out of USC’s #1 recruiting class are still around next year at this time.

 

[Jonathan14]

USC is #1 because of quantity not quality. The Trojans have 6 top 100 recruits. UConn has 3. Now, you can’t play 6 freshmen at the same time. But you can play 3. So let’s see how many players out of USC’s #1 recruiting class are still around next year at this time.

I completely agree. UConn has 3 in the top 11; USC has 1 in the top 11, plus #13 and #16...and then #54, #92, and a player who doesn't seem to be in the top 100.

Maybe the writer of the article thought you arrive at who has the best recruiting class by adding up the rankings of their recruits: UConn=1+7+11 vs. USC=6+13+16+54+92+100...USC wins!

 

[triaddukefan]

Only #2, you guys are doooooomed

I'm bummed we dropped to #7. Trying to console myself tonight.

 

[Glenn]

If you actually know the quality of the players, then quality is definitely more important. But you really don't know how good these players will be, thus quantity has real value. We see this in the NFL, where teams will trade to get multiple later round picks for an early round one.

 

[Alydar]

The person making the class rankings also ranked the players so quality should be his top weighted factor.

In any case they are what they are and if El Alfy is added as a redshirt freshman this becomes a true super class. To me the measure of a class is told when they are seniors.

 

[JonathanXIV]

Any analysis of classes has to take into account that one exceptional player is worth more than 3 good ones, and that the difference between 1 and 10 is often larger than 50 and 100.

 

[DEpup]

This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

 

[Fanofball]

Nobody comes close to Sarah Strong but Joyce. It makes sense to be No 2 because having her would skyrocket anybody’s class rank. But quantity over quality is an odd ranking system.

 

[oldhusky]

On the quality vs. quantity argument, remember a recruit ranked #100 is still probably quality. There are roughly 1,000 incoming Division 1 players each year (3 each times 360 schools). So #100 as an example is a 90th percentile prospect. Number 500 is more like average for Division 1 schools.

Having said that, schools in the Power 5 conferences plus a few like Uconn dominate the top 100. The very top programs generally recruit from the top 50 or better. But as Glenn has said, you don't really know how good these players will be. We have had two number 1 overall recruits who have not been able to make it in the W for example (Megan and Christyn) and others like Aubrey and Q on the current team that have played better than their HS rankings IMO.

With the increased importance of the portal the most relevant ranking would add portal additions and subtractions to the recruit rankings, turning it into a newcomers minus departures net change in talent. I see transfer rankings too, but nothing that incorporates all three, new recruits, portal additions, and portal subtractions.

 

[DEpup]

I think there should be more math to this. Add the rankings and divide by the number of recruits. Lowest score wins. It's not difficult.

 

[Fanofball]

On the quality vs. quantity argument, remember a recruit ranked #100 is still probably quality. There are roughly 1,000 incoming Division 1 players each year (3 each times 360 schools). So #100 as an example is a 90th percentile prospect. Number 500 is more like average for Division 1 schools.

Having said that, schools in the Power 5 conferences plus a few like Uconn dominate the top 100. The very top programs generally recruit from the top 50 or better. But as Glenn has said, you don't really know how good these players will be. We have had two number 1 overall recruits who have not been able to make it in the W for example (Megan and Christyn) and others like Aubrey and Q on the current team that have played better than their HS rankings IMO.

With the increased importance of the portal the most relevant ranking would add portal additions and subtractions to the recruit rankings, turning it into a newcomers minus departures net change in talent. I see transfer rankings too, but nothing that incorporates all three, new recruits, portal additions, and portal subtractions.

Class rank doesn’t matter as much as the coach they choose to go to. Hailey Van Lith was in the top 10 coming out of HS and Mulkey made her look like an unranked 3 star. Gottlieb is a decent coach, and I’ve no doubt she’ll make the best of these recruits.

 

[meyers7]

I think there should be more math to this. Add the rankings and divide by the number of recruits. Lowest score wins. It's not difficult.

Soooo,
Team A gets #1 player
Team B gets #2, #4, #6, #8 players.

A's score - 1
B's score - 5

Which team got the better class?

OR
Team A gets #1 player ( score - 1)
Then later adds #50, #100 players. ( now it's 50)

Did they make their class worse by signing more players???

 

[GoUconn7961]

What's wrong with #2? We try harder.

 

[oldude]

Just about every player that arrives at college is not necessarily “college ready” and therefore needs to develop at the college level to become effective. So having 6 players to develop presents a better opportunity than having only 3.

With that said, in an era of mass transfers, it is highly unlikely that the 6 incoming freshmen will all remain at USC for 4 years. Next season, Watkins will be the focus for USC along with 2 highly rated transfers. In addition there are several returning players who will get PT. Just how much PT the freshmen 6 get and how quickly they develop presents a serious challenge for Lindsey Gottlieb.

There are similar challenges at UConn for the 3 incoming freshmen. But it is highly likely that Sarah will be part of the rotation on day 1, while challenging for a starting spot. Morgan & Allie may take a little longer to make the transition to college, but they will certainly get their opportunity.

At the end of the day, player and recruiting class rankings are highly subjective. In retrospect, the best recruiting class ever assembled was the 2013 class that Geno brought in: 1 pg, 1 forward and 1 center…3 AA’s and 4 national championships.

 

[Fanofball]

Soooo,
Team A gets #1 player
Team B gets #2, #4, #6, #8 players.

A's score - 1
B's score - 5

Which team got the better class?

OR
Team A gets #1 player ( score - 1)
Then later adds #50, #100 players. ( now it's 50)

Did they make their class worse by signing more players???

In this case it's different.
Compare the #1, #7, and #11 players, one of which is leagues above everyone else except the #2 recruit going to a different school.
Now compare the #6, #13, #16, #54, and #92 players.
#1 could wipe the floor with 13, 16, 54, and 92 alone.

Also I'm fairly certain the ESPN rankings are pulled out the middle of nowhere sometimes.

 

[meyers7]

In this case it's different.
Compare the #1, #7, and #11 players, one of which is leagues above everyone else except the #2 recruit going to a different school.
Now compare the #6, #13, #16, #54, and #92 players.
#1 could wipe the floor with 13, 16, 54, and 92 alone.

Also I'm fairly certain the ESPN rankings are pulled out the middle of nowhere sometimes.

Ah there you go. Every case is different. Hence why you can't just add the numbers and divide.

 

[Charliebball]

Sarah Strong did not put us over the top. USC stayed #1 and we came in #2 (for whatever these things are worth!)

No. 2 UConn​

Highest-ranked commit: F Sarah Strong (No. 1)

UConn has landed yet another No. 1-ranked player in a recruiting class in Strong. She is ultra-versatile at the forward spot and will stretch the floor for the Huskies with her ability to knock down long-range 3s and has an advanced quality to her passing and facilitating. Geno Auriemma also adds two perimeter players who fit the UConn style of spacing, shooting and interchangeability.

• No. 7 Allie Ziebell is a 6-foot guard who is a poised and calm competitor. She has an extremely fundamental base of skills, particularly her shot. She uses efficient dribbles to create space for her own shot or to create opportunities for teammates. Ziebell is an excellent decision-maker and reads the floor well. She was one of the youngest members of the Under-19 Women's World Cup team that won gold in Spain last summer.
• No. 11 Morgan Cheli out of Archbishop Mitty in California is a utility wing who raises the level of competitiveness on the floor when she steps in between the lines. She has a slasher game with a nice pull-up jumper and she has complemented that with an improving shot from long range.

Here's the link to the whole article: 2024 women's college basketball recruiting rankings: Final top 25 classes

We won't know who really had the best '24 recruiting class until 2028..........

 

[Rowdy831]

The ranking matters if the only thing you win is the recruiting battles. UConn has the best roster based on recruiting rankings in the country and that has been true for 25 years. UConn has won championships more often than other teams because they have better players. If they have one area where they haven't done as good as some others it is recruiting and developing post players but really that doesn't matter as long as they are healthy.

Next year they will have one tall player on the roster but will also have 4-5 in the 6'2 and over range with a long Paige at guard. That lineup will match up well against any team out there, even if they have one player that is 6'6. They will be the only team starting 3 number 1 recruits so expectations should be really high. So number 2 is a great place as far as I am concerned.

 

[PacoSwede]

The ranking matters if the only thing you win is the recruiting battles. UConn has the best roster based on recruiting rankings in the country and that has been true for 25 years. UConn has won championships more often than other teams because they have better players. If they have one area where they haven't done as good as some others it is recruiting and developing post players but really that doesn't matter as long as they are healthy.

Next year they will have one tall player on the roster but will also have 4-5 in the 6'2 and over range with a long Paige at guard. That lineup will match up well against any team out there, even if they have one player that is 6'6. They will be the only team starting 3 number 1 recruits so expectations should be really high. So number 2 is a great place as far as I am concerned.

we don't know who starts. ... but 3 #1s on the team, yes.

 

[Dugway]

The only rating that matter's is the one that comes at the conclusion of the National Championship Game.

 

[Fanofball]

they should’ve added in transfers as well. USC landed two great ones that solidify the No. 1 spot. We added Chen, who gave teams like UCLA absolute hell despite being undersized against one of the bigger teams in the NCAA.

 

[Bone Dog]

There are roughly 1,000 incoming Division 1 players each year (3 each times 360 schools). So #100 as an example is a 90th percentile prospect. Number 500 is more like average for Division 1 schools.

I agree with your overall point. And maybe it’s worth observing that these numbers also produce a statistical conundrum. A D1 recruiting class is a self-selecting population — all the kids keen on playing WBB. This means talent is not distributed in the typical “bell curve,” with the vast majority clustered around the median. This is how randomly selected groups are distributed. It’s different with a self-selecting population in which the vast majority is clustered near the very bottom of the talent range.

The total pool each year is all the kids who were good enough to start on a varsity high school team, and really only the best of these end up even on a D1 bench. In a group like this, only the far right edge of the bell curve applies, the one with a steeply negative slope. The vast majority of the pool of recruits, maybe >95% of them, will cluster at the left as the weakest talents of the group. All but 40 or 50 of the recruits will ever make a significant contribution on a major D1 team. And the slope is even starker because of the impact of the basketball academies.

This same drill is repeated at the next level. Of the top of the D1 talent pool only a very few will find a spot on a W roster. And here again only the far right side of the bell curve will again sort itself out. The only difference is with each new level of selection the negative slope of the curve get slightly flatter.