|
Post by VBallLife on Jun 24, 2023 20:54:10 GMT -5
Does anyone know what ranking Kelly Kinney's ranking is? According to PD, looks like #21 national ranking (#9 OH) and I don't see any state rankings for Florida. Which is very subjective. What does Prepvolleyball have her ranked?
|
|
|
Post by texashorns on Jun 24, 2023 21:10:06 GMT -5
According to PD, looks like #21 national ranking (#9 OH) and I don't see any state rankings for Florida. Which is very subjective. What does Prepvolleyball have her ranked? 50
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jun 24, 2023 21:52:46 GMT -5
Below was my top 11 OH in this class that I watched at the NIT this year in February. This is just my opinion based on what I saw in just one day. It doesn't include the many players I didn't get to see and any player that wasn't at the TC tournament this year. Any of these players on this list could end up being an AA in college - there is a ton of talent and very few (just 3) have given a commitment yet. 1. Suli Davis - Drive Nation 2. Abby Vander Wal - 1st Alliance (Texas) 3. Madison Quest - MKE (Wisconsin) 4. Teraya Sigler - Arizona Storm (Nebraska) 5. Samera Coleman - Houston Skyline 6. Kaci Demaria - Surfside 7. Devyn Wiest - Arizona Storm 8. Bailey Warren - Houston Sklyline 9. Marcia Spears - TAV 10. Megan Fitch - Alamo 11. Sydney Bryant - Houston Juniors The point isn't the accuracy of my rating - but just how many great players are left. Also kind of interesting to me - the 3 that went were in my top 4 going to those premier programs (Nebraska, Texas, and Wisconsin).
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 24, 2023 22:16:49 GMT -5
Which is very subjective. What does Prepvolleyball have her ranked? 50 Time to interject the obligatory: Last year, PV ranking for the 2022 class, Eva Hudson was the 11th rated OH and 25th overall, and NFOY Morgan Colyer was the 12th rated OH at 26th overall.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 24, 2023 23:37:59 GMT -5
Figured that was the case - I doubt I rated her - similar to Horner (1st Alliance) since they were also setting. Horner was very noticeable as an impact club player - have no idea how she translates as a college setter only - probably very well? Translating club setting to D1 seems much harder to me than OH or RS to D1. Orr was the best club setter I have seen in person - I would have projected her to be an elite setter in college. I was also big on Cabello. You just made me search up Orr's club videos, she got called for a double within her first 5 sets LOL (15s AAU final). Well she was playing a year up and also made two great bump sets for kills and a diving pancake that saved a point before that double happens.
|
|
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: 12,865
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 25, 2023 6:09:49 GMT -5
You just made me search up Orr's club videos, she got called for a double within her first 5 sets LOL (15s AAU final). Well she was playing a year up and also made two great bump sets for kills and a diving pancake that saved a point before that double happens. What I remember of Orr was her ability to freeze the MB and create great hitting opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jun 25, 2023 11:54:20 GMT -5
Does anyone know what ranking Kelly Kinney's ranking is? My sense is recruiting rankings are still evolving. Kelly was invited to try out for the U19 Pan Am team. No more than a hand full of girls from 2025 were invited. That suggests at least elite potential. Now she didn't make the team. And she didn't get invited to try out for the U19 worlds team. But I will take the evaluation from Karch over any recruiting service. Part of Kelly's problem is she played at a pretty small club last year: boomers. They qualified in open and ended the season ranked 40. But it is harder to get noticed if you aren't one of the best players at a big club that is contending in the gold bracket every weekend. This year she moved over to Tribe to play with Glass and Barnes. Tribe also added an OPP from Jupiter. They are double or triple qualified and rated 16 in the country. My sense is all of the girls on that team are now getting more attention from the recruiting services. We will see....
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 25, 2023 12:51:40 GMT -5
Does anyone know what ranking Kelly Kinney's ranking is? My sense is recruiting rankings are still evolving. Kelly was invited to try out for the U19 Pan Am team. No more than a hand full of girls from 2025 were invited. That suggests at least elite potential. Now she didn't make the team. And she didn't get invited to try out for the U19 worlds team. But I will take the evaluation from Karch over any recruiting service. Part of Kelly's problem is she played at a pretty small club last year: boomers. They qualified in open and ended the season ranked 40. But it is harder to get noticed if you aren't one of the best players at a big club that is contending in the gold bracket every weekend. This year she moved over to Tribe to play with Glass and Barnes. Tribe also added an OPP from Jupiter. They are double or triple qualified and rated 16 in the country. My sense is all of the girls on that team are now getting more attention from the recruiting services. We will see.... I think my problem with critiques of recruiting services - and this isn't about volleyball specifically, as much as it is recruiting services in all sports since I first started following them - is that people want a perfect correlation, and love to point to flaws when it doesn't exist. I don't think of that as reasonable. There's not a perfect correlation in the professional ranks in terms of talent acquisition. Plenty of draft busts and plenty of stars who come out of nowhere, and the amount of money and resources spent on identifying talent in the pros dwarfs what is invested in the college ranks. I'm not looking for perfect correlation. I'm looking for any correlation. When programs who seem to recruit the highest ranked athletes year after year, and have the highest rated recruiting classes over time also dominate the NCAA tournament, that means something is being done right regarding the rankings, even if it's not 100% accurate. On the other hand, if players are being ranked highly, and recruiting classes are always near the top, but the performance doesn't match, something is wrong. It doesn't mean a highly ranked player is for certain the best player in her class, or that someone ranked lower might not surpass everyone. Tom Bradys exist. But if the aggregate is consistently off, there's a problem in the overall evaluation methodology. Unfortunately for me, I don't follow the volleyball club scene or the specific rankings of players closely enough to have any kind of informed opinion, but even with an admittedly uninformed opinion, it does seem like the schools who are bringing in the top rated talent overall are also experiencing the most success. And that has to be a factor when honestly critiquing them, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by nevollfan on Jun 25, 2023 13:08:58 GMT -5
I think recruiting volleyball rankings are limited in how good or accurate they can be when the girls finish college. Just sites strictly devoted to recruiting seem limited in accuracy unless subscriptions just explode. You need to hire more qualified people and hit the club scene locally and especially regionally and nationally. Or convince more club coaches who you trust to give free evaluations of own players and the girls they have seen that weekend. It seems a personnel problem more than a few years ago. Plus people who love indoor volleyball might be to cheap, can’t afford or have other spending priorities than some women’s indoor high school recruiting site.
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Jun 25, 2023 13:52:59 GMT -5
I think recruiting volleyball rankings are limited in how good or accurate they can be when the girls finish college. Just sites strictly devoted to recruiting seem limited in accuracy unless subscriptions just explode. You need to hire more qualified people and hit the club scene locally and especially regionally and nationally. Or convince more club coaches who you trust to give free evaluations of own players and the girls they have seen that weekend. It seems a personnel problem more than a few years ago. Plus people who love indoor volleyball might be to cheap, can’t afford or have other spending priorities than some women’s indoor high school recruiting site. Even if you increase scouts, etc high school rankings are notoriously inaccurate. No sport puts more resources into high school rankings than football. Yet every year there's only around 30 five star players. And only about half of those get drafted into the NFL. There are between 220-250 players drafted in the NFL each year (it changes due to things like compensation picks). So of the top 30 kids coming out of high school only half of those end up as one of the top 200+ kids in college. Granted, a higher percentage of 5 stars makes the NFL compared to 4 stars which is higher than 3 stars. But no matter what, there's going to be huge inaccuracies in any attempt to predict college success from high school. 50% accurate is about as good as you can do.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 25, 2023 13:55:02 GMT -5
I think recruiting volleyball rankings are limited in how good or accurate they can be when the girls finish college. Just sites strictly devoted to recruiting seem limited in accuracy unless subscriptions just explode. You need to hire more qualified people and hit the club scene locally and especially regionally and nationally. Or convince more club coaches who you trust to give free evaluations of own players and the girls they have seen that weekend. It seems a personnel problem more than a few years ago. Plus people who love indoor volleyball might be to cheap, can’t afford or have other spending priorities than some women’s indoor high school recruiting site. Also, if you can’t attract subscribers from a wide enough base, your chief source of income comes from the people most invested in the process - the parents of the players themselves. That’s one of the accusations I’ve seen leveled against one of the prominent volleyball recruiting sites. If you pay enough money to them, through subscriptions, camps, and whatever other products/services they make available, it will positively affect your ranking. That was a HUGE problem in the early days of football recruiting services. The biggest incentive was to only give out positive news about how great every prospect was. Better access to players, parents. and coaches for the recruiting services. Fans got to gorge on all the positive news about the talented incoming players. There was simply no incentive to rate a player lower, because accuracy wasn’t being valued. But then you’d see the highly ranked recruiting classes doing diddly squat, and at some point the charlatans were driven out of service in favor of more accurate models - even if bias still entered the equation. But as you’re saying, i don’t know what the base of volleyball fandom who is rabidly interested in recruiting can support financially. I see enterprises like volleyballmag, and I know they’re not exactly printing money right now, but I’m hopeful as the fan interest keeps increasing more economic opportunities will be made available. I continue to believe there’s at least some value in volleyball recruiting rankings. They obviously factor in national team involvement and school interest as factors, so there are other parties’ evaluations that are being included, for better or worse. I know it’s an imperfect system, but my main point is that it’s akways going to be an imperfect system. My question is, does it have any utilitarian value whatsoever? And to my casual eye it does.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 25, 2023 14:00:03 GMT -5
I think recruiting volleyball rankings are limited in how good or accurate they can be when the girls finish college. Just sites strictly devoted to recruiting seem limited in accuracy unless subscriptions just explode. You need to hire more qualified people and hit the club scene locally and especially regionally and nationally. Or convince more club coaches who you trust to give free evaluations of own players and the girls they have seen that weekend. It seems a personnel problem more than a few years ago. Plus people who love indoor volleyball might be to cheap, can’t afford or have other spending priorities than some women’s indoor high school recruiting site. Even if you increase scouts, etc high school rankings are notoriously inaccurate. No sport puts more resources into high school rankings than football. Yet every year there's only around 30 five star players. And only about half of those get drafted into the NFL. There are between 220-250 players drafted in the NFL each year (it changes due to things like compensation picks). So of the top 30 kids coming out of high school only half of those end up as one of the top 200+ kids in college. Granted, a higher percentage of 5 stars makes the NFL compared to 4 stars which is higher than 3 stars. But no matter what, there's going to be huge inaccuracies in any attempt to predict college success from high school. 50% accurate is about as good as you can do. But as I stated above, you could extend that further and look at boom to bust ratios using the round a player is drafted in as a metric. I don’t know what the numbers are, but I know it’s not 100% of first round picks work out. Still, the correlation holds that the higher you’re drafted the likeliehood to be a success increases. Talent evaluation is imprecise. As someone who has done hundreds of hires, and built multiple teams across various industries, I can attest it doesn’t just pertain to sports.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jun 25, 2023 14:42:58 GMT -5
My sense is recruiting rankings are still evolving. Kelly was invited to try out for the U19 Pan Am team. No more than a hand full of girls from 2025 were invited. That suggests at least elite potential. Now she didn't make the team. And she didn't get invited to try out for the U19 worlds team. But I will take the evaluation from Karch over any recruiting service. Part of Kelly's problem is she played at a pretty small club last year: boomers. They qualified in open and ended the season ranked 40. But it is harder to get noticed if you aren't one of the best players at a big club that is contending in the gold bracket every weekend. This year she moved over to Tribe to play with Glass and Barnes. Tribe also added an OPP from Jupiter. They are double or triple qualified and rated 16 in the country. My sense is all of the girls on that team are now getting more attention from the recruiting services. We will see.... I think my problem with critiques of recruiting services - and this isn't about volleyball specifically, as much as it is recruiting services in all sports since I first started following them - is that people want a perfect correlation, and love to point to flaws when it doesn't exist. I don't think of that as reasonable. There's not a perfect correlation in the professional ranks in terms of talent acquisition. Plenty of draft busts and plenty of stars who come out of nowhere, and the amount of money and resources spent on identifying talent in the pros dwarfs what is invested in the college ranks. I'm not looking for perfect correlation. I'm looking for any correlation. When programs who seem to recruit the highest ranked athletes year after year, and have the highest rated recruiting classes over time also dominate the NCAA tournament, that means something is being done right regarding the rankings, even if it's not 100% accurate. On the other hand, if players are being ranked highly, and recruiting classes are always near the top, but the performance doesn't match, something is wrong. It doesn't mean a highly ranked player is for certain the best player in her class, or that someone ranked lower might not surpass everyone. Tom Bradys exist. But if the aggregate is consistently off, there's a problem in the overall evaluation methodology. Unfortunately for me, I don't follow the volleyball club scene or the specific rankings of players closely enough to have any kind of informed opinion, but even with an admittedly uninformed opinion, it does seem like the schools who are bringing in the top rated talent overall are also experiencing the most success. And that has to be a factor when honestly critiquing them, doesn't it? Of course there isn't going to be anywhere near a perfect correlation. Even if you could do a perfect evaluation, some kids would continue to improve and some kids would plateau. We all know that. I think the HS football ratings are probably the most advanced. And there is a big correlation. Five stars are a lot more likely to end up in the NFL than four stars who are a lot more likely than 3 stars. As far as teams, realize that the rankings also take into account who has offered and where they go. If a girl gets recruited by Texas / Nebraska / Stanford she is going to get rated higher. The rankers aren't blind and they realize that maybe the coaches know a little bit something. So this isn't some overall critique of rankings. Just realize that the current rankings have some biases. And the bias in favor of the big club girls who play in the gold bracket at the biggest tournaments is clearly one of them. So if a girl at OTVA is ranked somewhere it is more likely accurate than a girl at Boomers. So in evaluating Kelly I would just keep that in mind. In my view the data point of getting invited to the U19 tryout is just a better data point than any ranking. Although once again neither are perfect.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jun 25, 2023 14:45:25 GMT -5
Even if you increase scouts, etc high school rankings are notoriously inaccurate. No sport puts more resources into high school rankings than football. Yet every year there's only around 30 five star players. And only about half of those get drafted into the NFL. There are between 220-250 players drafted in the NFL each year (it changes due to things like compensation picks). So of the top 30 kids coming out of high school only half of those end up as one of the top 200+ kids in college. Granted, a higher percentage of 5 stars makes the NFL compared to 4 stars which is higher than 3 stars. But no matter what, there's going to be huge inaccuracies in any attempt to predict college success from high school. 50% accurate is about as good as you can do. But as I stated above, you could extend that further and look at boom to bust ratios using the round a player is drafted in as a metric. I don’t know what the numbers are, but I know it’s not 100% of first round picks work out. Still, the correlation holds that the higher you’re drafted the likeliehood to be a success increases. Talent evaluation is imprecise. As someone who has done hundreds of hires, and built multiple teams across various industries, I can attest it doesn’t just pertain to sports. I agree with most of your opinions on this issue. It's a game of precision, not accuracy. Of course there will be misses, but there's a reason that the consistently top programs sign the highly rated recruits and it mostly works out for them. Unless someone is arguing that the top programs are standard deviations better at coaching and developing, which I don't necessarily think is true, then those programs stay at the top of the game because they routinely get the best talent in aggregate. I like your analogy of talent acquisition in the corporate world. We've analyzed hires every way possible and it turns out that the one metric that best predicts the success of candidates is whether they were recommended by current high value employees. High value employees usually keep a peer group of like-minded and similarly talented friends. Moreover, high value employees don't usually recommend friends that will make them look bad. Conversely, their recommended friends don't want to tarnish the reputation of the person that recommended them. Interestingly, Cook started heavily weighting the opinions of players on his roster when recruiting prep players. He frequently asks them about which players they played with (or against) that impressed them, and if they have a personal relationship with them, would they love to have them as a teammate. Of course, much more goes into the evaluation, but he's become a big believer that current players are some of the best talent evaluators.
|
|
|
Post by Kearney Kingston on Jun 25, 2023 18:46:53 GMT -5
John Tawa did a superb job of communicating with sources and calculating an excellent ranking of recruits. For some reason, nobody else has the knowledge to make this happen. Quite honestly, the current lists by money-making websites are a joke.
|
|