|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 7, 2016 14:39:00 GMT -5
IMO would it SHOULD BE, given the recruits that are left
10) Wisconsin
9) Texas
-------------
8) Minnesota
-------------
7) FSU
--------------
6) Kentucky
5) Wisconsin
4) UCLA
3) Florida
--------------
2) Texas
1) Texas
There have been a a few head scratchers so far, so who knows what the panel will do.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Sept 7, 2016 14:49:49 GMT -5
3 setters in the Top 10. But overall 125 very light on setters and back row specialist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 14:55:04 GMT -5
When did the coaches vote on this btw? was it before the u20 tournament?
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 7, 2016 14:56:15 GMT -5
Eh, I would take HM AA with a grain of salt. Because of regional distribution, that won't be representative.
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Sept 7, 2016 15:00:15 GMT -5
Texas fills an immediate need with the addition of Shook as they are losing Collins and Dalton, I do not see Fisbeck beating her out
Wisconsin fills an immediate need with the addition of Hilley as they are losing Carlini, I do not see Dixon beating her out
Tied
Texas Loses Cerame (OH) who can be replaced by Sun, however Texas already has Bedart-Ghani, Nwanebu listed at OH as seniors next season, that will be a battle. Butler will probably beat out one of Texas' already present middles
Wisconsin loses Nelson (MB) and Krishkova (RS) either of whom can be replaced by Rettke depending on where they get slotted but Duello is next in line in theory at RS. Whalen, Loberg will have to compete with Gillis and Haggerty for OH, Hart can maybe slide into Middle but will have to beat out Saunders or maybe Rettke.
Very slight advantage to Wisconsin as the recruits will fill in potential holes at hitters, Texas does not appear to have that need yet
If top classes are based off of immediate needs and impact next season, Wisconsin gets the ever so slight nod. Either way, it's basically a wash when picking 1 or 2 from this class
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 15:04:44 GMT -5
Somewhat surprised about Rettke being top 10, I would personally switch a couple of the 11-20 kids out for her and Shook, but eh it's not my job. My guess at the top 10:
10. Wisconsin
9. Texas
8. FSU
7. Kentucky
6. UCLA
5. Florida
4. Minnesota
3. Wisconsin
2. Texas
1. Texas
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 7, 2016 15:06:57 GMT -5
Somewhat surprised about Rettke being top 10, I would personally switch a couple of the 11-20 kids out for her and Shook, but eh it's not my job. My guess at the top 10: 10. Wisconsin 9. Texas 8. FSU 7. Kentucky 6. UCLA 5. Florida 4. Minnesota 3. Wisconsin 2. Texas 1. Texas me too. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 7, 2016 15:10:14 GMT -5
When did the coaches vote on this btw? was it before the u20 tournament? Just curious, why does 1 tournament matter? I think the LARGER question is how many of these players has the panel ACTUALLY evaluated recently to begin with? THAT I would be curious to know. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 7, 2016 15:13:33 GMT -5
Texas fills an immediate need with the addition of Shook as they are losing Collins and Dalton, I do not see Fisbeck beating her out Wisconsin fills an immediate need with the addition of Hilley as they are losing Carlini, I do not see Dixon beating her out Tied Texas Loses Cerame (OH) who can be replaced by Sun, however Texas already has Bedart-Ghani, Nwanebu listed at OH as seniors next season, that will be a battle. Butler will probably beat out one of Texas' already present middles Wisconsin loses Nelson (MB) and Krishkova (RS) either of whom can be replaced by Rettke depending on where they get slotted but Duello is next in line in theory at RS. Whalen, Loberg will have to compete with Gillis and Haggerty for OH, Hart can maybe slide into Middle but will have to beat out Saunders or maybe Rettke. Very slight advantage to Wisconsin as the recruits will fill in potential holes at hitters, Texas does not appear to have that need yet If top classes are based off of immediate needs and impact next season, Wisconsin gets the ever so slight nod. Either way, it's basically a wash when picking 1 or 2 from this class why would class be based off of immediate need? that would be a pretty dumb measuring tool. |
|
|
|
Post by 1TXHusker on Sept 7, 2016 15:15:38 GMT -5
yes it's South Dakota. Sweet will also be ranked somewhere I assume And McClellan. Looking like a very impressive class for the Huskers next year. The future's so bright we gotta  ...  GBR! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 15:18:07 GMT -5
When did the coaches vote on this btw? was it before the u20 tournament? Just curious, why does 1 tournament matter? I think the LARGER question is how many of these players has the panel ACTUALLY evaluated recently to begin with? THAT I would be curious to know. Because we are now discussing the "top 10" and a handful played in the u20 tournament against seemingly higher competition on a larger stage, which coaches could assume is closer to the college level. They were also playing together, so you can compare them easier. Butler was top 10 all last year, but I think she jumped this summer. Your second comment is always a constant concern with this list, as discussed. I'm happy this list is made every year and I think it's very successful considering the numerous variables of athlete development and restrictions from the voters. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 7, 2016 15:22:50 GMT -5
Just curious, why does 1 tournament matter? I think the LARGER question is how many of these players has the panel ACTUALLY evaluated recently to begin with? THAT I would be curious to know. That is a very good point. Since most of the top girls verballed as freshmen or sophomores and are presumed to be off the market, exactly how closely are they tracked by other schools for the 2 or 3 years between then and now? YES, that's what I'd wanna know. |
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Sept 7, 2016 15:23:47 GMT -5
Texas fills an immediate need with the addition of Shook as they are losing Collins and Dalton, I do not see Fisbeck beating her out Wisconsin fills an immediate need with the addition of Hilley as they are losing Carlini, I do not see Dixon beating her out Tied Texas Loses Cerame (OH) who can be replaced by Sun, however Texas already has Bedart-Ghani, Nwanebu listed at OH as seniors next season, that will be a battle. Butler will probably beat out one of Texas' already present middles Wisconsin loses Nelson (MB) and Krishkova (RS) either of whom can be replaced by Rettke depending on where they get slotted but Duello is next in line in theory at RS. Whalen, Loberg will have to compete with Gillis and Haggerty for OH, Hart can maybe slide into Middle but will have to beat out Saunders or maybe Rettke. Very slight advantage to Wisconsin as the recruits will fill in potential holes at hitters, Texas does not appear to have that need yet If top classes are based off of immediate needs and impact next season, Wisconsin gets the ever so slight nod. Either way, it's basically a wash when picking 1 or 2 from this class why would class be based off of immediate need? that would be a pretty dumb measuring tool. I agree to a certain extent, but if I remember correctly, that's how Illinois' recruiting class beat Texas in 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 7, 2016 15:30:14 GMT -5
Just curious, why does 1 tournament matter? I think the LARGER question is how many of these players has the panel ACTUALLY evaluated recently to begin with? THAT I would be curious to know. Because we are now discussing the "top 10" and a handful played in the u20 tournament against seemingly higher competition on a larger stage, which coaches could assume is closer to the college level. They were also playing together, so you can compare them easier. Butler was top 10 all last year, but I think she jumped this summer. Your second comment is always a constant concern with this list, as discussed. I'm happy this list is made every year and I think it's very successful considering the numerous variables of athlete development and restrictions from the voters. Oh I DO think that this list is very good overall, no question about that...but subtle differences in player ability could have big changes in where the ladies are on these lists relative to each other. I'd bet my bottom dollar that if you did a week long try out with just the top 50 girls RIGHT NOW and did as objective of an evaluation as you could, with the SAME panel, this list would have some pretty meaningful changes. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 7, 2016 15:35:33 GMT -5
why would class be based off of immediate need? that would be a pretty dumb measuring tool. I agree to a certain extent, but if I remember correctly, that's how Illinois' recruiting class beat Texas in 2015. You have to remember Recruiting Classes come about a year after Senior Aces, and views on where individual players should be ranked can change based on the 18s season. |
|
... 
GBR!