Rankings Revised to 60

[glenn]

We are way ahead of where we've ever been at this point, folks. Our Top 40 just grew to a Top 60 for the 2008 class with several players making big moves!

As an aside, I cannot believe some of you didn't notice that the rankings have been revised since this afternoon!

http://www.hoopgurlz.com/story/rankings-race

[NGBBoiler]

Alex Guyton decommitted from Michigan after their coach retired.

[CHARLESI]

Good to see you have expanded your coverage to teams other then Boo Williams, West
Coast Elite, Philly Belles and a few other teams. If you are to have credibility, you have
to cover all the good adidas teams also. But keep up the good work.

[scoutnwhoops]

We've been covering adidas events and non-sneaker events for some time so that back handed remark is a little upsetting.

[ifyousayso]

I can attest to the fact that Glenn was at Las Vegas last year and even sat through the 100 degree plus gym of FBC hosted tourney in Las Vegas at about the same time which featured some of the top Adidas teams, not to mention Adidas Top Ten tourney in the ATL and the Deep South this year...

[CHARLESI]

Good to hear about the commitment to total coverage. Your new and expanded rankings reflect that commitment. Look forward to finding out about more good new players. Like I said, keep up the good work.

[glenn]

CharlesSI, what really gets my goat are people who just post things half-cocked. I know you back-tracked on your original statement, but your original statement remains unnecessary. Have you been paying attention? We've probably covered the adidas kids at least as much as the rest.

[sim111]

CharlesSI, I am one of those people who posted half cocked and I was wrong, dead wrong about these guys. They can't see everyone on a limited budget however they do their best to cover all the kids on the circuit and they truly take pride in getting it right.

[CHARLESI]

Thanks for the insight Lone Star. I looked back at the archives and there is good adidas ra
coverage. My point was that the Midwest coverage, the change in rankings and the
additional players in the rankings made it seem like new players and more teams were
getting exposure. The coaches know about a lot of the top players already. Remeber
Steve Nash had only one scholarship offer-Santa Clara-a low level school and look
where he is at now.

[WOLFSCOUT]

Got to watch those training campers

[ifyousayso]

:D Lol. ........................

[sim111]

The thing most folks don't understand is that it is hard to rank a player you haven't seen. I have several folks in Texas who can call me and say I have a can't miss but by that same token I have some folks who have lost all credibility with me based on their incorrect assesments for whatever reason. Chris and Glenn were rolling across the country on their dimes and if you were not where they were or if they hadn't seen any video footage of you, it wouldn't be fair. One guy with a prominent scouting service and I had it out year before last. My daughter was regarded by many as the best player in the city, yet this guy had her ranked 269 at the guard position. I went completely crazy on this nut and asked him why and he said because he hadn't seen her. I told him there are 10,000 girls playing you haven't seen so where are they? Look I wrote Glen in 2005 telling him about my kid and he by chance had bought some DVDs hoopstv shot at BOB. This is what he wrote back.

Hello …



I am the editor-in-chief of the Scout network, but also spearheading coverage of girls prospects. See:



http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=209&p=9&cfg=wbb&c=4&yr=2006&pid=88



and my website, www.HoopGurlz.com



I FINALLY saw some tape of the Houston Insiders. I assume she is No. 4?



Can you send me more background on her, including high school, height, scoring average, etc.? Do you have any digital photos? Can you also send me the top five schools in which she is interested? Also some contact information?



I will build her a profile page; see as an example:



http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=209&p=8&c=1&nid=1962733





Glenn Nelson,

Editor-in-Chief,

Scout Media

8 website: www.Scout.com

- e-mail: gnelson@scout.com

This shows the guy is trying and he and I had a big knock down dragout a while back but I misunderstood what he is doing and how he does it. He is a good guy who is actually trying. I know there are kids all over the country that aren't getting the ink and you probably could get the best of these kids and put together a top 25 team. This is what I would suggest to you, get some footage on the kids you are talking about be it summer or HS and get it to my man. I think he probably wants game and not highlight footage because I can put a highlight of myself and lie about almost playing in the league. Well actually..... :confused:

[scoutnwhoops]

Yes Simmy is right about video. If you want the player to be evaluated please send a DVD (or tape) that is of above average quality where the players can be easily identified. It is also good to include player ID's so we actually know who we're looking at. You'd be shocked how many times people send DVD's without ID's. We watch and note the top couple of players in the game and turns out neither was the player submitting the game but since we didn't know what we were looking at it turned into positive feedback for the players that stood out.

Highlight reels are not the best for us or for colleges. They and we, want to see the players make mistakes so we can see how they react. I agree on the highlight reels. Heck, my Monday night league I go from looking like a superstar one weekend where I can't miss from the arc to playing slopping and turning the ball over the next week. I wonder which game would be omitted from a highlight film?

[Balling]

I hear u when u say what u said sir.....but bottom line if someone can leave off their "bad stuff" in the highlight film, cant they also leave out altogether the "bad game" they had and give u their "good game"?? (Referencing your analogy on yourself) Its the exact same thing. Bottom line it is and should be used to spark interest, and then check them out in person for yourself to see for your self.

[scoutnwhoops]

I hear u when u say what u said sir.....but bottom line if someone can leave off their "bad stuff" in the highlight film, cant they also leave out altogether the "bad game" they had and give u their "good game"?? (Referencing your analogy on yourself) Its the exact same thing. Bottom line it is and should be used to spark interest, and then check them out in person for yourself to see for your self.

I think most peopel assume a good game means scoring well but as skilled as most college coaches are at evaluations they will get to see the players weaknesses and athleticism cap even in a good game. She may not turn the ball over a lot in that "good' game but they won 87-33 and because of the margin she relaxed and all her natural habits came out... she passed with her right hand to the left wing with a defender on her, against a good defender that's a tipped pass... she does it again and gets away with it. She scores 23 points but never shows she can finish with her left The other team turns it over 25 times and watching the kid score uncontested transition layups may constitute a high scoring game for her doesn't show anything.

You're right that the game is supposed to spark interest to come see her live but if the coaches can't get a feel for the kid at all I doubt they'll find it interesting. That's just from my talks with various coaches and from having a hundred or so DVD's sent my way last year to watch.

[YourCrimsonNightmare]

This is a great topic, and while we are on it, I'm wondering why some player we can assume has a fairly high probability of at least being a legit Division I prospect, and very impressive known and published credentials, and yet that player isn't in the database?

Is it because of editorial preference not to list players that aren't evaluated yet, or a lack of time or resources to get it done? Some of us would probably donate time just to chase down the names of some players who "might be" evaluated, if and when the opportunity rises. We could e-mail the coach and ask if they would be so kind as to offer an assessment, sent to HoopGurlz, of so-and-so player's talent whether or not he/she believes that she's a legitimate prospect. And we could ask if we could build at least a minimal profile of that player based upon a few basic pertinent facts.

We could compile that stuff in a form that could be automatically processed into a database by import. And so one. Lots of stuff could be done. I'm not a coach, but I feel that I'm informed enough to know a really good player when I see one, because I go to games and specifically look at what a player can and cannot do, and what that player does very well. I notice those things because I am really into watching the game.

Free help, even if it's an hour or two a week, is something that shouldn't be sneezed at.

So what's the take on what I've just said? There are a lot of others around here who could say similar things. I (for instance) might know of a player that's doing things that have never before been done in that player's state. Why is that not valuable information?

I'll welcome any replies, critical or otherwise.

[scoutnwhoops]

This is a great topic, and while we are on it, I'm wondering why some player we can assume has a fairly high probability of at least being a legit Division I prospect, and very impressive known and published credentials, and yet that player isn't in the database?

Is it because of editorial preference not to list players that aren't evaluated yet, or a lack of time or resources to get it done? Some of us would probably donate time just to chase down the names of some players who "might be" evaluated, if and when the opportunity rises. We could e-mail the coach and ask if they would be so kind as to offer an assessment, sent to HoopGurlz, of so-and-so player's talent whether or not he/she believes that she's a legitimate prospect. And we could ask if we could build at least a minimal profile of that player based upon a few basic pertinent facts.

We could compile that stuff in a form that could be automatically processed into a database by import. And so one. Lots of stuff could be done. I'm not a coach, but I feel that I'm informed enough to know a really good player when I see one, because I go to games and specifically look at what a player can and cannot do, and what that player does very well. I notice those things because I am really into watching the game.

Free help, even if it's an hour or two a week, is something that shouldn't be sneezed at.

So what's the take on what I've just said? There are a lot of others around here who could say similar things. I (for instance) might know of a player that's doing things that have never before been done in that player's state. Why is that not valuable information?

I'll welcome any replies, critical or otherwise.

We are in the process of adding some 200 players to the database and in the next few months I expect hundreds more from various classes. When we came over to the new site we thought it was best to import our 07 Top 100 first, then the top 08's we've seen.

You are more than welcome to compile the information for any kids you see. Often times we'll see a kid at a non viewing event or get a referral from someone and get as much as we can on Google. Email Glenn if you want to put some time into it. He may not reply for a day or so as he's in transit to Colorado.

BTW we fixed the Contact Us link. It works again but you have to be logged in.

[acasualfan]

do you base most of your rankings on performance or potential or a litttle of both. For instance a player who is 6'6" but has not performed yet but her upside is unlimited would you be inclined to rank her higher than someone who has performed well but may have peaked. Do you also include how they perform against different levels of competition. Some of these young ladies may be very good and because of their lack of exposure may not be ranked as high. One example that comes to mind was Cetera Degraffenreid who stock rose after she joined the elite summer circuit. She basically came from a small school in rural North Carolina and did not come onto the national scene until her junior year although a lot college coaches knew about her. thanks::)

[scoutnwhoops]

In the case of Cetera we just simply didn't see her before she played for the Flight. Some of that can be attributed to the good publicity that comes from playing with that team and some of it was we grew our scope as we hope to do every year.

Potenial has to be taken into account but potential without work ethic usually ends up being the same potential three years down the road. What we take into account alot is how a player performs against other top players. That is the best barometer we can use, especially if you're going to rank players. How can anyone decide if one player is better than another without comparison head to head or at least against common opponents or common caliber opponents. That's why seeing so many teams in Ohio was such a big deal. USA Basketball is another great opportunity for the best players to go head to head and fight it out over their specific spots. If you want to be considered elite you should be pushing your team deep into tournaments.

We take a little of both into account because you can't teach size but there are some kids that have other intangibles that can't be taught either.

We also don't rank players we haven't seen so we'll never speak out that we're the all inclusive this or that. Case in point, Brittney Griner, the YouTube phenom. We hope to see her this summer but based on hype from the internet and her commitment to Baylor we're not going to just throw five stars on the kid.

It's an inexact science and everyone else does it a little differently. Our Star ratings havea little more potential in their use while rankings have more a little more emphasis on current performance.

[acasualfan]

I agree 100% America is a big place and you can only see so many players. It would be nice to evaluate your rankings 5 years from now when the ladies graduate and it is my guess you will be pretty much on target. there will always be that sleeper who comes through but as the word gets out your web site will encourage and benefit those girls who do not get as much exposure. It may even encourage them to seek venues to showcase there talents

[scoutnwhoops]

I believe one user did a look back at the 2006 class. Its fun to look back and see who panned out and who didn't and although we'd never call a kid out directly we can all examine on our own why some do and don't reach our expected potential.

[glenn]

The Golden Rule on this site: We only evaluate and therefore rate (stars) or rank players that we've actually seen. No ifs, ands or buts.We just don't see how it can be done any other way. People call and write all the time, but we cannot take anyone else's word for a player. Their evaluation brings in their own biases and agendas. We're human so, yes, we have our own filters, but if we started bringing in everyone else's as well, how unclear does that picture get? Put it this way, if Jessica Alba called me today and asked me to rank a player, after I picked myself off the floor and stopped speaking in tongues, I'd thank her for the referral and tell her what I tell everyone - that we need to see this player for ourselves. (OK, but because it's Jessica, I'd try real hard to see her player as soon as humanly possible).

Caveat No. 1: 2006 was the first class we ranked (and only to 50), and that was the year we started doing this. This very fact has many consequences - all of which I will not be able to conjur at 1 a.m. (Mountain Time). The longer one does this, the earlier he or she sees kids and the larger body of knowledge is developed. For example, we are a lot farther along on 2009 now than we were on 2008 at this time last year. It's the product of being around.

Caveat No. 2: we're not a scouting service, so our "clients" are everyone, plus we're letting all of you watch while we do this. This also has numerous consequences. For example, Caveat No. 2 plus Golden Rule equals some deserving players not showing up on our lists right now. That doesn't mean they'll never be and it also doesn't mean we don't know about them. We have a long (and always growing) list of players we want to check out.

Rule of Evaluation No. 1a: We do not "performance" evaluate. That is, the results a player puts up in any particular game is never really relevant. We look at size, build, athleticism, skillsets, attitude, demeanor on the court and under pressure - things like that. Stats, for example, cannot carry much weight because they are a product of a lot of things that are not consistent or under the player's control. I get a lot of emails touting players who "outplayed (so and so, who is ranked)." How are we supposed to know what that means? Maybe one player is featured in her offense and the other is not. Maybe the "outplayed" player was supposed to be working on other things. Maybe the team of the player being touted quadruple-teamed the "outplayed" player, therefore creating the mismatched stats.

There's plenty more. We also have an explanation of rankings linked at the bottom of every page on the non-forum part of our site.

[txbasketball24]

Well said, Glenn. You and Chris have been doing a wonderful job with not much, if any, credit. Constantly defending yourselves makes for a long day! LOL

Keep up the good work!

[intelligenthoodlum]

Interesting vibes, rankings, on the girls side. On the boys side, when a player is ranked below someone(s), the player and his circle pull out the dance card, line 'em up, and go after as many ranked above him as possible, with the intent of tearing each and every one of them's head off IN COMPETITION.
On the girls side, in the same situation, the vast majority of the girls and their circles whine and fake-beef about all of the surrounding NON-ISSUES, but don't plot and plan to just go after all ranked above them ON THE COURT, IN COMPETITION...

[ZinfanHeel]

Personally, I check the rankings frequently but I will admit that I don't always catch every player movement. I wonder if there is some way of indicating it when a player gains (or loses) a star? Because of my particular area of interest, I did note that Chay Shegog went from a 4 to a 5.

Some people think Ashley Gayle is a big-time talent but her stock does not appear to be on the rise. Anyone care to comment?

I will note that on the old scout.com (sorry) board the rankings went much deeper. I didn't always use the rankings but I did pay attention to the commitments when attempting to evaluate the upcoming ACC season. It does not appear that anyone is updating that site.

Housekeeping: It's my impression that She'la White has committed to UNC. Her entry doesn't specifically say that. Also, can you give Candace Wood her stars?

Speaking of asides, it would seem to me that if you insist on only fully-cocked replies it may somewhat limit the overall number of responses. ;)