|
|
Post by OHVBKING on Jun 12, 2023 14:12:18 GMT -5
Most anyone that goes the big volleyball tournaments (NIT, Qualifiers, Etc) can walk in the gym and identify the top 100 kids from all the big clubs. You might not have them in the exact order but you know who they are. Having said that there are a lot of kids flying under the radar. In fact the most athletic outside hitter I have seen in the last two years is not on the list because she doesn't play for a big name club. Not only is the kid the most athletic but she is probably one of the most powerful kids I have seen in the club circuit. I have watched her play several times and see people that stop in their tracks because they are that impressed with her power. When she hits the ball and the DS is not able to dig it correctly, the balls goes flying two courts over. And yeah, she can jump. But maybe because she is only about 5'11" and plays for a smaller club she doesn't get recognized, but I got a feeling when she gets to college we are all going to know who she is. Not mentioning any names because I think he dad post on here from time to time. I would call her a 3 star recruit with 5 star talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyspy on Jun 12, 2023 14:43:58 GMT -5
Most anyone that goes the big volleyball tournaments (NIT, Qualifiers, Etc) can walk in the gym and identify the top 100 kids from all the big clubs. You might not have them in the exact order but you know who they are. Having said that there are a lot of kids flying under the radar. In fact the most athletic outside hitter I have seen in the last two years is not on the list because she doesn't play for a big name club. Not only is the kid the most athletic but she is probably one of the most powerful kids I have seen in the club circuit. I have watched her play several times and see people that stop in their tracks because they are that impressed with her power. When she hits the ball and the DS is not able to dig it correctly, the balls goes flying two courts over. And yeah, she can jump. But maybe because she is only about 5'11" and plays for a smaller club she doesn't get recognized, but I got a feeling when she gets to college we are all going to know who she is. Not mentioning any names because I think he dad post on here from time to time. I would call her a 3 star recruit with 5 star talent. Agreed it does not take long to identify the top 100 talent in the gym at major national tournaments. Most the top 25-30 players usually stand out even more because they totally change the game in favor of their team when they are in the game. Also at 16s, you have to project what the ceiling is for some of these players. There are few players not even closely physically or experience wise to their ceiling that may actually be in the teens or 20s in current rankings that end up as top 10 talents when they get to college. |
|
|
|
Post by westie13 on Jun 12, 2023 15:49:36 GMT -5
I think both of them are a mess. They’re HIGHLY subjective and often political. PrepDig doesn’t even cover all of the states, and favors a lot of the girls in the Midwest/Texas areas. PrepVolleyball has a lot of the girls ranked low that should be higher. And depending on what schools we see these girls commit to these next several months, these rankings will change even more. Agreed. PrepVolleyball has completely lost all credibility. PrepDig is marginally better but they have many players way too high and many way too low. PD tends to rank all the players from the best teams incredibly high when in reality there are maybe 4-5 superstars on that team deserving of the high ranking with teammates who are good, but not phenoms deserving to be ranked higher than the best players of that position that maybe aren’t on a top 5 team. Not every single player on a top 5 team deserves to be in the top 30. There are 2025 players that are invited to every USAV NTDP and are being recruited by Power 5 schools but are not even on the list period. There are 2024 players that are still uncommitted, never on an All American team or invited to NTDP or other measures of success ranked higher than kids that are in the conversation for U19 teams and committed to top schools. And then you have kids ranked higher nationally than they are in their state rankings. I have no doubt it’s hard to rank kids, which is why I think numerical rankings are stupid. It would be better to do a star system. Top five kids for their position are 5 stars. Next five are four stars, and so on. Though according to who they have as their top 5 is head scratching for a lot of positions. Still it gets away from numerical rankings. In the end, people just want a list of players compiled that they can talk about, but doing it numerically just creates unnecessary harm for these kids. And they are kids, which a lot of people seem to forget. Stars would be better but even with that you have to look at where kids are committed, outside factors (all Americans, NTDP, national team, etc…) that should weigh more than the kid happens to play on a top 5 team with superstar teammates. |
|
|
|
Post by thedudeabides21 on Jun 12, 2023 16:10:25 GMT -5
I think both of them are a mess. They’re HIGHLY subjective and often political. PrepDig doesn’t even cover all of the states, and favors a lot of the girls in the Midwest/Texas areas. PrepVolleyball has a lot of the girls ranked low that should be higher. And depending on what schools we see these girls commit to these next several months, these rankings will change even more. Agreed. PrepVolleyball has completely lost all credibility. PrepDig is marginally better but they have many players way too high and many way too low. PD tends to rank all the players from the best teams incredibly high when in reality there are maybe 4-5 superstars on that team deserving of the high ranking with teammates who are good, but not phenoms deserving to be ranked higher than the best players of that position that maybe aren’t on a top 5 team. Not every single player on a top 5 team deserves to be in the top 30. There are 2025 players that are invited to every USAV NTDP and are being recruited by Power 5 schools but are not even on the list period. There are 2024 players that are still uncommitted, never on an All American team or invited to NTDP or other measures of success ranked higher than kids that are in the conversation for U19 teams and committed to top schools. And then you have kids ranked higher nationally than they are in their state rankings. I have no doubt it’s hard to rank kids, which is why I think numerical rankings are stupid. It would be better to do a star system. Top five kids for their position are 5 stars. Next five are four stars, and so on. Though according to who they have as their top 5 is head scratching for a lot of positions. Still it gets away from numerical rankings. In the end, people just want a list of players compiled that they can talk about, but doing it numerically just creates unnecessary harm for these kids. And they are kids, which a lot of people seem to forget. Stars would be better but even with that you have to look at where kids are committed, outside factors (all Americans, NTDP, national team, etc…) that should weigh more than the kid happens to play on a top 5 team with superstar teammates. Definitely no rhyme or reason to some of these lists. Heck even NTDP invites still leave me scratching my head. Height seems to trump talent there. I get that you can't teach height but I've seen far more talented players overlooked for NTDP for much less athletic but taller players. When it comes to some of these ranking sites, while all are flawed, at least prepdig has representatives that go and watch these players. I've seen them on courts at every major qualifier. Not sure how qualified their reps are, but I think they are trying to make a push at being a legitimate site/ranking system. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,193 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 12, 2023 16:22:45 GMT -5
I think both of them are a mess. They’re HIGHLY subjective and often political. PrepDig doesn’t even cover all of the states, and favors a lot of the girls in the Midwest/Texas areas. PrepVolleyball has a lot of the girls ranked low that should be higher. And depending on what schools we see these girls commit to these next several months, these rankings will change even more. Agreed. PrepVolleyball has completely lost all credibility. PrepDig is marginally better but they have many players way too high and many way too low. PD tends to rank all the players from the best teams incredibly high when in reality there are maybe 4-5 superstars on that team deserving of the high ranking with teammates who are good, but not phenoms deserving to be ranked higher than the best players of that position that maybe aren’t on a top 5 team. Not every single player on a top 5 team deserves to be in the top 30. There are 2025 players that are invited to every USAV NTDP and are being recruited by Power 5 schools but are not even on the list period. There are 2024 players that are still uncommitted, never on an All American team or invited to NTDP or other measures of success ranked higher than kids that are in the conversation for U19 teams and committed to top schools. And then you have kids ranked higher nationally than they are in their state rankings. I have no doubt it’s hard to rank kids, which is why I think numerical rankings are stupid. It would be better to do a star system. Top five kids for their position are 5 stars. Next five are four stars, and so on. Though according to who they have as their top 5 is head scratching for a lot of positions. Still it gets away from numerical rankings. In the end, people just want a list of players compiled that they can talk about, but doing it numerically just creates unnecessary harm for these kids. And they are kids, which a lot of people seem to forget. Stars would be better but even with that you have to look at where kids are committed, outside factors (all Americans, NTDP, national team, etc…) that should weigh more than the kid happens to play on a top 5 team with superstar teammates. I have mixed emotions on this. I love lists. But looking back - it seems like the difference between #20 and #150 can be marginal. And I suspect the difference between #150 and #500 becomes rather small also. What little I have spent watching the 2025 OH's - there are at least a dozen that are in the top tier (IMO) - such that I wouldn't guarantee any of them being better than the next in college. So putting an order on those 12 (and probably more) is really meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 12, 2023 17:05:58 GMT -5
Agreed. PrepVolleyball has completely lost all credibility. PrepDig is marginally better but they have many players way too high and many way too low. PD tends to rank all the players from the best teams incredibly high when in reality there are maybe 4-5 superstars on that team deserving of the high ranking with teammates who are good, but not phenoms deserving to be ranked higher than the best players of that position that maybe aren’t on a top 5 team. Not every single player on a top 5 team deserves to be in the top 30. There are 2025 players that are invited to every USAV NTDP and are being recruited by Power 5 schools but are not even on the list period. There are 2024 players that are still uncommitted, never on an All American team or invited to NTDP or other measures of success ranked higher than kids that are in the conversation for U19 teams and committed to top schools. And then you have kids ranked higher nationally than they are in their state rankings. I have no doubt it’s hard to rank kids, which is why I think numerical rankings are stupid. It would be better to do a star system. Top five kids for their position are 5 stars. Next five are four stars, and so on. Though according to who they have as their top 5 is head scratching for a lot of positions. Still it gets away from numerical rankings. In the end, people just want a list of players compiled that they can talk about, but doing it numerically just creates unnecessary harm for these kids. And they are kids, which a lot of people seem to forget. Stars would be better but even with that you have to look at where kids are committed, outside factors (all Americans, NTDP, national team, etc…) that should weigh more than the kid happens to play on a top 5 team with superstar teammates. I have mixed emotions on this. I love lists. But looking back - it seems like the difference between #20 and #150 can be marginal. And I suspect the difference between #150 and #500 becomes rather small also. What little I have spent watching the 2025 OH's - there are at least a dozen that are in the top tier (IMO) - such that I wouldn't guarantee any of them being better than the next in college. So putting an order on those 12 (and probably more) is really meaningless. To me there's only one purpose to it. I started following recruiting back in the 70s, in the stone ages. Specifically football recruiting. I spent a small fortune in newsletters, magazines, 1-900 numbers. I went to high school football games. Took recruiting people out to lunch on a regular basis. I was all in. The biggest issue I found in the whole industry was zero accountability. All the incentives were to talk about how great a player was. It was an incentive to stay good with the player and their family. To the high school coaches (who controlled a lot of recruiting back then). To the college coaches. To the fan bases. Little to no incentive to talk poorly about players. I didn't see industry wide rankings start coming out until at least the 90s. I mean, newspapers had their lists, but no one took them that seriously. Even now, there's such a pressure to talk everyone up, and to rank everyone as high as possible. But at least with a list, there's a zero sum element involved. If you're going to rank someone higher, you have to rank someone lower, which means there's at least some kind of qualitative measurement going on. Even if it's wrong, over time that can come out, too. In my mind the real problem with volleyball industry rankings is that it appears they're half @ssing it. They're not spending the time and energy actually going to the club events, and drilling down comparing the various players. They're not being held accountable for their lists. No one is showing up as the industry leader that we all look to as the most authoritative source on it. I wonder if volleyballmag doesn't go in that direction to fill the vacuum, especially with the Tawa's Daily Dots type articles. Tawa seems well respected on volleytalk. But I'm so far out of my depth in volleyball. I don't go to club events. I don't go watch high school tournaments. I don't even watch video (although I consider that a terrible way to make definitive judgements - it's just that's sometimes all someone has). I'm certainly not anything remotely close to a talent expert. But I have always found value in recruiting rankings. Even when they're wrong, they provide a measurement for how wrong a service is/was. Because otherwise everyone is amazing. Then you see them play, and it's like, "what is so amazing about them?" |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,193
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 13, 2023 7:26:33 GMT -5
I have mixed emotions on this. I love lists. But looking back - it seems like the difference between #20 and #150 can be marginal. And I suspect the difference between #150 and #500 becomes rather small also. What little I have spent watching the 2025 OH's - there are at least a dozen that are in the top tier (IMO) - such that I wouldn't guarantee any of them being better than the next in college. So putting an order on those 12 (and probably more) is really meaningless. To me there's only one purpose to it. I started following recruiting back in the 70s, in the stone ages. Specifically football recruiting. I spent a small fortune in newsletters, magazines, 1-900 numbers. I went to high school football games. Took recruiting people out to lunch on a regular basis. I was all in. The biggest issue I found in the whole industry was zero accountability. All the incentives were to talk about how great a player was. It was an incentive to stay good with the player and their family. To the high school coaches (who controlled a lot of recruiting back then). To the college coaches. To the fan bases. Little to no incentive to talk poorly about players. I didn't see industry wide rankings start coming out until at least the 90s. I mean, newspapers had their lists, but no one took them that seriously. Even now, there's such a pressure to talk everyone up, and to rank everyone as high as possible. But at least with a list, there's a zero sum element involved. If you're going to rank someone higher, you have to rank someone lower, which means there's at least some kind of qualitative measurement going on. Even if it's wrong, over time that can come out, too. In my mind the real problem with volleyball industry rankings is that it appears they're half @ssing it. They're not spending the time and energy actually going to the club events, and drilling down comparing the various players. They're not being held accountable for their lists. No one is showing up as the industry leader that we all look to as the most authoritative source on it. I wonder if volleyballmag doesn't go in that direction to fill the vacuum, especially with the Tawa's Daily Dots type articles. Tawa seems well respected on volleytalk. But I'm so far out of my depth in volleyball. I don't go to club events. I don't go watch high school tournaments. I don't even watch video (although I consider that a terrible way to make definitive judgements - it's just that's sometimes all someone has). I'm certainly not anything remotely close to a talent expert. But I have always found value in recruiting rankings. Even when they're wrong, they provide a measurement for how wrong a service is/was. Because otherwise everyone is amazing. Then you see them play, and it's like, "what is so amazing about them?" I am loosely familiar with Rivals in college football. I am not sure if they are the gold standard? But even that is flawed in that they tend to rank players being recruited by the top programs higher - because they are being recruited by the top programs. This is creating herding issues. Also - outside of QB, specific players don't materially move a program - it takes a lot of good players and a lot of excellent player development. Basketball - certainly considerably more money and eyes watching then VB - and this makes a big difference. I don't follow this much, but I do think these players are playing in tournaments in the summer where you can see them against top talent and a single place? There is also a ton of valuable information - like what colleges a player has made an official visit and what colleges are interested in the player. Following volleyball recruiting - this information seems almost completely private. Volleyball is next to impossible to do this with one person - too many matches spread out across the country. Even when most of the players are in one location (like the Triple Crown) - there are over 100 matches going on at the same time 15 hours a day. It is impossible to see everything - it is impossible to most of what is happening. PV, PD, VBM are showing up to these events - but there are severe limits. There isn't the money to have many people from these organizations to show up and compare notes. PV used to have a great list - and it was done by extensive interviews and networking with a team of college coaches. This isn't w/o conflict of interest issues - but it was getting consensus opinions from a large group of people that had a vested interest in knowing and watching the players. That is gone - and there is a current void. Putting these 3 lists together (VBM doesn't have a number list - but it does have a very valuable list) probably gets us close to useful information. No one should expect these to ever miss - football and basketball have their misses. |
|
|
|
Post by 4theloveofvb on Jun 13, 2023 8:23:11 GMT -5
A very good point in the previous post. A lack of resources is the main drag on quality lists. John Tawa had the most robust processes. Multiple staffers and numerous contributors from club directors to college coaches. He had regional/national ranking committees and rolled the information together.
Prep Dig is very geographic. The geographic "expert" still can't compare/contrast because of the nature of multiple courts and events being simultaneous. Prep Dig doesn't network the club coaches to the best of my knowledge. Prep Volleyball is an absolute joke right now. Very little coverage or outreach.
Red Hat Lady covers a lot of events but seems focused on the very best teams and every kid on those teams and not necessarily the best "50" kids in an age group. Also don't think that she and her staff ask for a lot of feedback from the club contacts on the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jun 13, 2023 9:56:39 GMT -5
Tawa did it best when he was at PVB. However, wasn't there some issue where he wasn't allowed to get opinions from college coaches anymore shortly before he left the publication? It seems to resource intensive. To do it well, it requires multiple contributors who know the game well traveling to all the reputable tourneys and covering not just the open division, but the smaller divisions too. Then it also requires input from club and college coaches. Once you have those factors considered, a reasonable list can be aggregated, but even then, it's still a game of precision and not accuracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bud Kilmer on Jun 13, 2023 10:14:18 GMT -5
In other sports, the digging for depth, talking to high school coaches, teammates, teachers, etc is much more extensive.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,193
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 13, 2023 10:27:13 GMT -5
prepvolleyball just polls the big clubs they communicate with and hypes their best players. They obviously have a tie with Amy Burk at Houston Skyline. But then again, most college coaches do the same thing. As an industry, the recruiting is very lazy. To me, especially with setters the question needs to be asked, if I removed player X from her loaded stacked club team, how does she perform on a mid tier team? Does she make them become a great team or what happens when another setter is inserted onto her current team? Do they miss a beat. Most of the time its about height and then hype...and most of the hype comes from what club you are associated with and what ties they have. It always amazes me the guilty by association that goes on, IE if you happen to be lucky enough to set a team full of future college allstars at 15,16,17 while your opponents are playing with borderline players that may not even play in college, that somehow that makes you a 5* player too. In other sports, the digging for depth, talking to high school coaches, teammates, teachers, etc is much more extensive. In theory - getting information from club coaches about players on teams they do not coach but play all the time is less biased than the information from their own players. Someone compiling the list would need to take that into account. As for how you play with (and against) - you have the same thing when looking at college players. Good players on bad passing teams will not have a high K%. |
|
|
|
Post by haterade on Jun 13, 2023 10:28:45 GMT -5
Evaluation is a huge issue. A secondary issue is that it is not always clear what they are ranking. The players most likely to succeed in college? How likely they are to have an impact as a freshman? Is the #1 player the person with the highest ceiling or the best right now?
Obviously as a recruiting ranking, there is an element of projection to it. While also being covered much more in depth, the boys basketball recruiting seems to be very focused on potential and likelihood to get to the NBA. Looking back, they do a very good job identifying players as sophomores etc. I just don't see the same focus across these rankings.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jun 13, 2023 12:23:02 GMT -5
prepvolleyball just polls the big clubs they communicate with and hypes their best players. They obviously have a tie with Amy Burk at Houston Skyline. But then again, most college coaches do the same thing. As an industry, the recruiting is very lazy. To me, especially with setters the question needs to be asked, if I removed player X from her loaded stacked club team, how does she perform on a mid tier team? Does she make them become a great team or what happens when another setter is inserted onto her current team? Do they miss a beat. Most of the time its about height and then hype...and most of the hype comes from what club you are associated with and what ties they have. It always amazes me the guilty by association that goes on, IE if you happen to be lucky enough to set a team full of future college allstars at 15,16,17 while your opponents are playing with borderline players that may not even play in college, that somehow that makes you a 5* player too. In other sports, the digging for depth, talking to high school coaches, teammates, teachers, etc is much more extensive. In theory - getting information from club coaches about players on teams they do not coach but play all the time is less biased than the information from their own players. Someone compiling the list would need to take that into account. As for how you play with (and against) - you have the same thing when looking at college players. Good players on bad passing teams will not have a high K%. That's what Tawa did regularly when he was at PVB. He always solicited opposing club coach impressions of players. |
|
|
|
Post by skyspy on Jun 13, 2023 12:48:09 GMT -5
Tawa has developed his own top 100 list for the 2023 - 2026 classes and is releasing 5 names selected randomly from the rankings each week. It seems like there is somewhat of a consensus among Tawa, PrepDig and PrepVolleyball on about 15 of the top 20 players who have been listed in the top 20 on all 3 lists. They also are listed as 5 stars prospects on VballRecruiter too. Those players are likely the core top 15-20 players nationally when you consider all the rankings collectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jun 13, 2023 12:53:19 GMT -5
Tawa has developed his own top 100 list for the 2023 - 2026 classes and is releasing 5 names selected randomly from the rankings each week. It seems like there is somewhat of a consensus among Tawa, PrepDig and PrepVolleyball on about 15 of the top 20 players who have been listed in the top 20 on all 3 lists. They also are listed as 5 stars prospects on VballRecruiter too. Those players are likely the core top 15-20 players nationally when you consider all the rankings collectively. If you have all those lists, please do them to bluepenquin. Hopefully he'll make his blank ink list again. |
|
