|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Jul 10, 2023 14:23:40 GMT -5
Nunneviller and Snyder come to mind? Outside of that, not sure. Carli Snyder? I think Kelly Murphy too. Yep. I personally think Carli made the right choice - she was a little raw early in college - not sure she would've had the same kind of leash at Stanford. |
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Jul 10, 2023 14:24:05 GMT -5
Nunneviller and Snyder come to mind? Outside of that, not sure. Stanford lost Brooke themselves. they were #1 or #2 on her list IIRC but neither of her top schools were going to let her hit:/ Was it SC and Stanford? |
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Jul 10, 2023 14:30:39 GMT -5
Stanford lost Brooke themselves. they were #1 or #2 on her list IIRC but neither of her top schools were going to let her hit:/ Was it SC and Stanford? let’s just say it’s painful for me to talk about as well lol |
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Jul 10, 2023 14:33:25 GMT -5
let’s just say it’s painful for me to talk about as well lol GOT IT |
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Jul 10, 2023 14:34:27 GMT -5
let’s just say it’s painful for me to talk about as well lol I'm actively LOLing thinking of a certain coach deciding Nunneviller isn't good enough to hit for that program... damn DR! |
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Jul 10, 2023 16:39:48 GMT -5
Whether or not she was told she could hit at Stanford, I don’t know. However, it’s been pretty widely spoken and in the open for years since that something happened with Nuneviller’s admissions which took Stanford out of the game.
Same with Amanda Gil years back, based on what’s been shared about it. No personal or inside info on either, but those are the two that come to mind as at least having been talked about having admission issues while being a Stanford lean.
Kelly Murphy got accepted. She just chose Florida over Stanford. And Megan Hodge.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jul 10, 2023 18:09:02 GMT -5
I personally do not think of other schools as tier 2 or tier 3. The fact remains those three top schools in recruiting very rarely lose any recruiting battles other than to each other. That’s all it means. It doesn’t mean they’re better in any other way. Obviously there are factors allowing them to get first dibs regarding the players they bring in, but it doesn’t put them on an untouchable tier...except in recruiting. Does Stanford lose a lot of recruiting battles? I gotta think, for a PSA with the academics to qualify for Stanford, it's a slam-dunk. they don't often lose recruiting battles that they're truly involved in, but there are recruits who simply don't want to wait for Stanford admissions / exclusively want to play in the B1G and knock Stanford out of consideration in the first place for that reason. Only saying this because ive heard first hand from players who ended up at other top schools they very recently lost a '25 Libero recruit to Wisconsin, Kristen Simon, who they offered a full ride. wisco only offered 3 years but still got her |
|
|
|
Post by xlumie on Jul 10, 2023 19:35:25 GMT -5
let’s just say it’s painful for me to talk about as well lol WAIT. Brooke actually wanted to go to UofA?  |
|
|
|
Post by volleylbc on Jul 10, 2023 19:43:11 GMT -5
Bailey Webster from Texas is one I remember didn’t get into Stanford.
|
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jul 10, 2023 19:49:24 GMT -5
let’s just say it’s painful for me to talk about as well lol WAIT. Brooke actually wanted to go to UofA? No |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jul 10, 2023 19:51:40 GMT -5
Having gone through this process very recently here's my $.02 as parent and strictly from what some coaches conveyed during the process. There definitely is a top tier. There is a handful of girls that are world killers or game changers. We've had the pleasure of playing with some and there definitely are kids that, even at the highest level, separate themselves physically (mostly) but also just in raw talent, athleticism or IQ that make them difference makers. The number of these per class varies but I would put it at 5-10 players. To have all the bases covered, let's say there's 20 of those. Once you get past that, its gets a lot mushier in terms of difference. The difference between 21 and 201 is a lot less than it used to be in their eyes. While the ceiling has gone up for sure due to better coaching, resources and players, the floor has come way up where the difference between the top of this range and bottom is much less noticeable. That lessening of range brings a lot of other factors into play in recruiting where things like personality, regionality, etc. become deciding factors. In my opinion, its made it much harder for "really, really good players" to find homes. You may have spent an entire club career positioning yourself and be better than this kid or that kid but in the coaches eyes, that difference isn't really that big of a deal and they'll take a kid that is closer to them that they've seen more vs. an out of state kid that they've only seen a couple of times because the chances of the local kid leaving from being homesick are lower. Or they just know the kid better because of growing up coming to camp. Anecdotally, I played men's club in college. Our starting middle on our women's team was 5'10 and all conference multiple times. Great athlete and had an awesome career. Her measurables are no where near what most of the #21 to 201 kids are now. 6'0 or 6'1 OHs are a dime a dozen now and the difference is quite small so standing out, even with a 10'+ attack touch is tough and there are a lot more factors at play in finding a home. It's great for the game because you are seeing more and more programs being able to compete at high levels year over year so the product overall is getting really great and seeing some mid majors become perennial powers from really wise recruiting is awesome. The gorillas are still the gorillas and will continue to be with the physical difference they bring to the table. But on any given night, with ball control a little off and the IQ/talent on some of these other teams, anything can happen and its great for the game. Tough for recruiting but great for the game. I don't have a good perspective on how the 2025 class compares to other classes - specifically 5+ years ago. From what I have seen - the list of very talented players is much larger than usual (just my perception). But this is in part due to the very large number of outstanding prospects at the pins for this year. I mean - I think someone like Vander Wal is an elite prospect for D1 - but their are many potential impact OH's in this class (and 2024 also had a large number) that are very close Vander Wal. Texas, Nebraska and Stanford are the beasts in recruiting - but it isn't sustainable for them to be the only programs to materially be getting the best players as it relates to real playing time on the court. This number is getting close to expanding - maybe Wisconsin is already there. Kentucky, Minnesota, USC, Florida are or will be knocking on the door - and at least a dozen right behind them. But there is another factor that is temporarily expediting this - that Covid 5th year. This is limiting the number of players those top programs can take. It is creating more (in some ways - much more) talent in D1 right now. And that is the formula for more parity. What we don't know - what happens once that Covid year goes away? Covid 5th year made it easier for teams other than those big 3 to win. And to a certain extent - it has made it tougher for them to 'corner the market' on new recruits. And then you have a year like this year - and there are going to be a lot of programs that are going to bring in at least one of those major players - not to mention the continued depth down the line (difference between #21 and 201 continues to get smaller). My perception, which is skewed and not necessarily correct, is that 16u sophomores (2025 this year) are always loaded with promise and have a large number of girls that people over-project based on wishful thinking that they will still grow and will continue to improve at the rate they have the previous 3 years, but that a lot of them plateau physically and/or mentally and just don't. The number of obviously high quality recruits seems to shrink at 17 and again at 18. If you talk to older coaches before the race to recuit 8th graders, they didn't want to commit to a recruit until they saw them as a junior because of that. Taking that into account, I really think the number of no-brainer recruits that every top school would take no questions asked as a sophomore (first recruiting date) is closer to the notvballdad initial estimate of 5-10. I've definitely seen top 20-25 recruits that had already faded and schools were questioning and/or pushing out by 17 and 18. That doesn't even include the girls that suffer from a year or 2 of injury issues at 17 and 18 and come with the question of how much time will it take to get healthy and strong, and has their projected ceiling diminished? As you said, there are so many viable teams now, not just the big four of Stanford, PSU, NE and TX (at least a dozen more each year with a viable shot at the final four) that a top attacker doesn't need to go to a big four school if she projects to sit for a year or two behind an Eggleston, when she can go to a Louisville or Pitt and play from day one. Recruiting mistakes and misfortunes will continue to happen (impossible to predict a Hayley Hodson or a Leilah Smith), but the bench depth at the schools is unlikely to be the same. Who wants to be an insurance policy on the bench when you have other viable options? |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jul 10, 2023 19:54:35 GMT -5
let’s just say it’s painful for me to talk about as well lol WAIT. Brooke actually wanted to go to UofA? That is very hard to believe, because I can't imagine they were in position to tell her sorry, you will never hit for us. At the very end it was definitely a choice between Oregon and Stanford, and Oregon didn't think they had a chance (according to interviews with Ulmer) |
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Jul 10, 2023 19:54:37 GMT -5
WAIT. Brooke actually wanted to go to UofA? No lol okay… |
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jul 10, 2023 19:55:35 GMT -5
Not what i was told from the most trusted Brooke source on this board lol But I may also be wrong |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jul 10, 2023 20:01:10 GMT -5
That is very hard to believe, because I can't imagine they were in position to tell her sorry, you will never hit for us. At the very end it was definitely a choice between Oregon and Stanford, and Oregon didn't think they had a chance (according to interviews with Ulmer) the reason oregon didn’t have a chance is because the home school was the backup option if she couldn’t get in or couldn’t hit at Stanford… but she then wasn’t gonna be able to hit at the home school either. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I am very surprised that (I assume Rubio) thought he was in a position that he could recruit her while saying she would have no opportunity to hit (which was obviously a huge priority for her) |
|
