2021 Class Rankings

#1

tnvolfan65

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
59
Likes
255
#1
Using the consensus rankings of ESPN, Prospects Nation, ASGR, and Blue Star (posted somewhere a couple months ago on this board), I assign numerical values to recruits that I can then plug into a formula for class rankings. Formula is highest ranking player * 6 + 2nd highest ranking player * 3 + 3rd highest ranking player * 1.5 + each additional recruit. I also have a bonus system that rewards multiple high ranking players (helps with ties as well). In the case of a tie, the tiebreaker is highest ranking player.

I'm sure this will shift a bit when the rankings are updated/expanded (looking at you Prospects Nation!) but as of 7/2/20.

 
#4

PRG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,689
Likes
1,706
#4
Tennessee players' consensus rankings:

32 Kaiya Wynn
ESPN-23 PN-NR BS-39 ASGR-41

51 Karoline Striplin
ESPN-48 PN-35 BS-53 ASGR-72

55 Sara Puckett
ESPN-62 PN-21 BS-94 ASGR-45

105 Brooklynn Miles
ESPN-46 PN-NR BS-154 ASGR-82
I appreciate your time and effort to do this ! I find myself not thinking of each rating organization as all of them being equal ! JMO

Such as:
Kamilla Carodosa from Hamilton Heights finished as a top 5 ranked player ! This was after her senior year ..... She was not rated until during and at the of her junior year ! Some of our recruits are not rated by all of the organizations.

Our least rated recruit. (Puckett). Hoopgurlz says she is a 4 star player at #62 but PN says she is #21 ? Huh 🤔. But if you research her recruiting...... almost every SEC teams offered her ???? Every team in the SEC wanted her !
Let that sink in ..... our lowest rated recruit was wanted by everyone else ! Just Saying
 
#5

Amb3096

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
6,593
Likes
8,511
#5
I appreciate your time and effort to do this ! I find myself not thinking of each rating organization as all of them being equal ! JMO

Such as:
Kamilla Carodosa from Hamilton Heights finished as a top 5 ranked player ! This was after her senior year ..... She was not rated until during and at the of her junior year ! Some of our recruits are not rated by all of the organizations.

Our least rated recruit. (Puckett). Hoopgurlz says she is a 4 star player at #62 but PN says she is #21 ? Huh 🤔. But if you research her recruiting...... almost every SEC teams offered her ???? Every team in the SEC wanted her !
Let that sink in ..... our lowest rated recruit was wanted by everyone else ! Just Saying
Those rankings are all over the place. Wynn and Miles didn't make PN's list, but were top 50 by ESPN?

I agree that a better indicator of how good a player is projected to be is based on which schools recruited them. Not just SEC schools, but if the usual suspects in the top 20 rankings were after a player, chances are she's a keeper.
 
#6

PRG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,689
Likes
1,706
#6
Those rankings are all over the place. Wynn and Miles didn't make PN's list, but were top 50 by ESPN?

I agree that a better indicator of how good a player is projected to be is based on which schools recruited them. Not just SEC schools, but if the usual suspects in the top 20 rankings were after a player, chances are she's a keeper.
I agree we are competing with the major teams for players. However , we must compete with everyone in our conference first and then all of the other big dogs . The correlation with Carodosa is with wynn and Miles as PN left her off their ratings for awhile also ! But they eventually picked up on her .

I thought it was interesting that HG #62 and PN #21 was quite a gap for a good evaluation! JMO. And considering all but two teams (SEC) had offered Puckett ..... and HG ‘s think she is #62 with more offers than others that are rated higher ? Just Saying
 
#7
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
7,498
Likes
8,327
#7
For me and for the Lady Vol program,,,,the Fab Four are the #2 class due to cumulative factors...We have four very different players in one draw,,,A speedy PG, a shooter, an inside-out player and a physically gifted versatile baller....I could care less what how anybody, private or known ranks this class, I rank them "Yessss!"
 
#8

tnvolfan65

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
59
Likes
255
#8
I don’t think the number 7 class is anything to be ashamed of...we haven’t been a top-10 program in years. I think this class represents Kellie building the culture as much as anything. I think all four of these kids are four-year players and will put in the work to be successful.

I also agree it’s a well-rounded class and filled our needs. But to be realistic, I think this class is missing star power. Which of these players is going to be an All-SEC player or a first-round WNBA pick in four years? I think if that’s offensive, then I would question your objectivity. But I also realize the audience here.
 
#9

Volfaninfl2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,737
Likes
2,515
#9
I don’t think the number 7 class is anything to be ashamed of...we haven’t been a top-10 program in years. I think this class represents Kellie building the culture as much as anything. I think all four of these kids are four-year players and will put in the work to be successful.

I also agree it’s a well-rounded class and filled our needs. But to be realistic, I think this class is missing star power. Which of these players is going to be an All-SEC player or a first-round WNBA pick in four years? I think if that’s offensive, then I would question your objectivity. But I also realize the audience here.
You’re basing your “realistic” opinion on highly divergent rankings of players who have finished their Junior year in HIGH SCHOOL. Your numbers and bonus points are reliant on those ratings. Should a school be higher ranked, with fewer but higher ranked recruits, than a school who has more recruits who are also highly ranked?

It’s even possible that after their Senior year in High School, there may be many more players’ names with “star power.” We’ll find out who will be ALL-SEC or a first-round WNBA pick.

While you may question my “objectivity,” I question your judgment of players a year before they even arrive on campus.
 
Last edited:
Likes: stlvolsfan
#10

tnvolfan65

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
59
Likes
255
#10
You’re basing your “realistic” opinion on highly divergent rankings of players who have finished their Junior year in HIGH SCHOOL. Your numbers and bonus points are reliant on those ratings. Should a school be higher ranked, with fewer but higher ranked recruits, than a school who has more also highly ranked recruits?

It’s even possible that after their Senior year in High School, there may be many more players’ names with “star power.” We’ll find out who will be ALL-SEC or a first-round WNBA pick.

While you may question my “objectivity,” I question your judgment of players a year before they even arrived on campus.
The thing is, I actually don’t think there is a lot of divergence among the elite female players. I’m a relatively new poster to this board, but I’ve been on the Summitt since 2007, and I’ve been doing consensus rankings since 2011. Every year the top 15-25 kids are fairly easy to distinguish, and their consensus rankings reflect that.

I do agree that my class rankings formula is a bit star-heavy, but I would also agree that women’s college basketball is still a star-driven game. And yes I would generally rank a smaller class of top-10, top-20 caliber players higher than a bigger class of top-50 or top-100 players. I think history would agree with me, and I’d be more than happy to go back and research.

Do players fly under the radar? Yes. A recent and seemingly the most popular example right now is Rhyne Howard. She was ranked 31 by ESPN, which gets all the press. However, she was ranked 18th by PN and 8th by ASGR, who clearly saw her as more of the star she would become.

The truth is all four of these recruiting services are run by one person or a small group of people, so putting too much weight in any one service is silly. But forming a consensus rankings with 4-8 people who have made a career and a reputation out of evaluating prospects gives a pretty clear picture, and the only judgment you’re questioning is theirs. All I do is plug their rankings into excel.
 
#11

NeedOrange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
374
Likes
461
#11
Thanks for all your effort. My only question is on the determination of a multiplier for the top 3 picks. How did you determine the 6, 3, 1.5 ratio. I understand the attempt to evaluate a generational player. For example if the LV's land Azzi Fudd, she should catapult them to the top of the rankings.
 
#12

Bballnut1952

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
579
Likes
569
#12
You’re basing your “realistic” opinion on highly divergent rankings of players who have finished their Junior year in HIGH SCHOOL. Your numbers and bonus points are reliant on those ratings. Should a school be higher ranked, with fewer but higher ranked recruits, than a school who has more recruits who are also highly ranked?

It’s even possible that after their Senior year in High School, there may be many more players’ names with “star power.” We’ll find out who will be ALL-SEC or a first-round WNBA pick.

While you may question my “objectivity,” I question your judgment of players a year before they even arrive on campus.
Its not his judgement. It’s a compilation of Judgements from people that do this for a living. Kinda harsh, don’t you think?

How would you judge them?
 
#13

GameTime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
3,052
Likes
4,648
#13
For me and for the Lady Vol program,,,,the Fab Four are the #2 class due to cumulative factors...We have four very different players in one draw,,,A speedy PG, a shooter, an inside-out player and a physically gifted versatile baller....I could care less what how anybody, private or known ranks this class, I rank them "Yessss!"
I'm with you coach.....This class is going to be great and I'm looking forward to seeing them play....It's going to be what dreams are made of.

When I was a collector of gambling debts, I often heard the same excuse from the losers, "How did they not win....The charts said they were a lock."

On this class....."I'm all in!"
 
Likes: Volfaninfl2
#15

Rickster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,764
Likes
3,326
#15
I don’t think the number 7 class is anything to be ashamed of...we haven’t been a top-10 program in years. I think this class represents Kellie building the culture as much as anything. I think all four of these kids are four-year players and will put in the work to be successful.

I also agree it’s a well-rounded class and filled our needs. But to be realistic, I think this class is missing star power. Which of these players is going to be an All-SEC player or a first-round WNBA pick in four years? I think if that’s offensive, then I would question your objectivity. But I also realize the audience here.
Let's see them play first. They may all be stars or none of them. A lot depends on how Kellie uses their talents.
 
#16

Terrells Bay88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
117
Likes
118
#16
It should be pointed out that there is different philosophies that are used by the different services. Simple example: some services rate based on current level of competition or how a player performs against HS competition. Other services project how a player will perform at the next level against college competition.

A 6'0" HS PF that is dominating the competition would be ranked higher by the first service, while a 6'3" PF in the same conference that is less dominant would be ranked higher by the second service.
 
Likes: Volfaninfl2
#17
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
7,498
Likes
8,327
#17
I'm with you coach.....This class is going to be great and I'm looking forward to seeing them play....It's going to be what dreams are made of.

When I was a collector of gambling debts, I often heard the same excuse from the losers, "How did they not win....The charts said they were a lock."

On this class....."I'm all in!"
One thing I have learnd over time GT

A person's (or player's) value doesn't decrease based on someone's else's inability to see their worth.

Pucket is a shooter
Striplin is a well-taught mechanics oriented performer
Wynn is going to be a phenominal talent
and Brooklynn will be my pick as the one that brings the most impact to the team's need

And I don't discredit this year's four horsemen
 
#19

lfvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
125
Likes
155
#19
The thing is, I actually don’t think there is a lot of divergence among the elite female players. I’m a relatively new poster to this board, but I’ve been on the Summitt since 2007, and I’ve been doing consensus rankings since 2011. Every year the top 15-25 kids are fairly easy to distinguish, and their consensus rankings reflect that.

I do agree that my class rankings formula is a bit star-heavy, but I would also agree that women’s college basketball is still a star-driven game. And yes I would generally rank a smaller class of top-10, top-20 caliber players higher than a bigger class of top-50 or top-100 players. I think history would agree with me, and I’d be more than happy to go back and research.

Do players fly under the radar? Yes. A recent and seemingly the most popular example right now is Rhyne Howard. She was ranked 31 by ESPN, which gets all the press. However, she was ranked 18th by PN and 8th by ASGR, who clearly saw her as more of the star she would become.

The truth is all four of these recruiting services are run by one person or a small group of people, so putting too much weight in any one service is silly. But forming a consensus rankings with 4-8 people who have made a career and a reputation out of evaluating prospects gives a pretty clear picture, and the only judgment you’re questioning is theirs. All I do is plug their rankings into excel.

Excellent post, thanks
 
Likes: tnvolfan65
#20

lfvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
125
Likes
155
#20
perhaps, but Top 10 recruits can be as much of a crapshoot as lower-ranked recruits, which is something LV fans have recently experienced

Though there are examples, this isn’t really true. The ceiling is far higher for top rated recruits. They worked well for TN pre HW staff, and they still work well at UConn, SC, etc.
 
Last edited:
#21

Volfan2012

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
17,143
Likes
11,847
#21
We've had more athletic classes than this one but I don't think we've had a class in a while that has the basketball skills of this one. If we'd had some of these players coming off the bench last season the record would've been a lot better than 21 and 10. We had some real problems getting scoring, defense and effective play from the bench last season. I think the players we have coming in this season will help and these players in 2021 will really elevate the bench and maybe one or two could start. We had five quality starters last season, but when the bench came in leads they built suddenly disappeared. I think these players will be able to hold and even extend leads.
 
#22

lfvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
125
Likes
155
#22
We've had more athletic classes than this one but I don't think we've had a class in a while that has the basketball skills of this one. If we'd had some of these players coming off the bench last season the record would've been a lot better than 21 and 10. We had some real problems getting scoring, defense and effective play from the bench last season. I think the players we have coming in this season will help and these players in 2021 will really elevate the bench and maybe one or two could start. We had five quality starters last season, but when the bench came in leads they built suddenly disappeared. I think these players will be able to hold and even extend leads.
I agree on the shooting skills for three of the commitments. But, to say we had 5 quality starters last year is a stretch. We had major athleticism problems at the 5 and the Brown position.
 
#23

Volfan2012

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
17,143
Likes
11,847
#23
I agree on the shooting skills for three of the commitments. But, to say we had 5 quality starters last year is a stretch. We had major athleticism problems at the 5 and the Brown position.
I agree what I should've said was that the starters usually went to the bench with the lead and then the bench gave the lead up. Brown was not physically able to play at 100 percent and Key and Horston were freshmen so none of those three ever played to their true potential because freshmen seldom do and Brown just never was physically able.
 
Likes: LadyVols_WBK
#24

Voltopia

Aight, aight, aight.
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,847
Likes
3,371
#24
It’s a good class. Tennessee needed a good class. Next year they’ll need to target a bit more size and post play — you can’t coach height — but for now they’ll have to focus on making the most of what they can put on the court.

Also, just saying, if you want to see bias, just check out fans discussing new recruits. Some kid or another is always the next coming. Fans cannot help themselves. They see ten minutes of tape and suddenly they know everything. I’m no different. I’ve thought kids were destined for greatness, and watched them end up never making an impact. I saw a tape of Shanna Zolman in high school and thought she was the best mechanical shooter I’d ever seen. I could see she was a bit slower, but I *believed* she’d be a legendary scorer regardless. I thought “they can work on that.” And she was a great player, just ... I let my bias influence my thinking. As fans do.
 
#25

Volfaninfl2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
1,737
Likes
2,515
#25
Its not his judgement. It’s a compilation of Judgements from people that do this for a living. Kinda harsh, don’t you think?

How would you judge them?
It was numbers, Rutgers, until he judged them and made it personal to each of our new players by saying, “Which of these players will be an All-SEC player?” His next words made it clear he did not intend that comment as a question.
 

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top