I'll throw in my two cents on this string: Too much emphasis in ranking recruiting classes is put on Canadian National team pool players ...It is known that is much easier for Canadian players to get on their national/regional teams relative to US players mostly due to numbers of players trying to open that door. I'd stack about ten ECNL, even those without accolades, against most Canadians national pool players. But same could be said for US regional and national pool players...there are probably a couple dozen players that are comparable but didn't get in the mix. So I'd rather we rank these recruiting class after their Sophmore college year, then programs have given them some time to show themselves on a big field, and chances are, if given ample play opportunity at collegiate level, stars come out that were never recognized in their youth accolades. Problem...coaches tend to promote and therefore play those recruits decorated as youth players, and by nature they become better college players. However, for most "star youth players", it only takes one year of college, or even one semester/season of balancing practice, game travel, education and partying to see who really pans out as a star recruit!
I agree. This is indeed the case for some (if not many) players. If I had the time , I am sure that I could generate dozens of names to exemplify exactly what you are saying about individual players AND about Canadian and other international pool players in general. (This is why, in my explanations of the system I use, Canadian players, in the absence of any other specific information I can stumble across, are rated below equivalent US players.) However, from the larger perspective, accolades do mean something. If you were a betting man, and were looking carefully at a slate of horse races on which to put your money, you would would likely hedge your bets with horses that had established track records as opposed to those you knew little about. To put it differently, there are a lot of coaches involved in the evaluation and selection of kids who are on the national pools and traveling teams, and as such, the pools represent a crude form of consensus opinion. So while you and I could name many unknown players who developed beautifully in college ( and some pool players who faded), as a group the pool players (and others with high accolades) are indeed superior to any other similar sized group you or I could identify going into their first college season. Like any other statistical exercise, one can point to overall validity while acknowledging that the individuals who make up that group will very greatly. This, of course, is what makes following sports more exciting.... spotting that heretofore unknown rising up and beating the big names. Americans like overachieving underdogs as much as their stars.
well big soccer dad - them fighting words. Don't think for a second the college coaches be fools. They aren't going to fund a full ride Canadian over an American kid - if they can get american for less money and spread the scholarships around they will - but they choose to go for players with international exposure. Equally do not think the Canadian kids haven't had to juggle school - travel - gyms and social life. Looking at the ranking table about to be published - I would think that those schools that have gone international for players will be very happy with the results- and don't think for a second they haven't done their homework. The foreign players also tend to get exposure quicker to higher levels - this is an amazing asset in the change room- Watch to see how West Virginia and LSU do this year - them make a call.
I think what a lot people here don't realize is that schools simply do not invite any international player to their program. They do a fair big of scouting before they recruit any internationals. Take for example Michigan. Not a school that everyone has in their mind as a contender for a National title. But year in and out they get to the NCAA tournament and they do well in them getting to the quarterfinals. Michigan doesn't get by on only good coaching and finding gems from their recruiting class, they do what any other college does if they want to fight for titles. They recruit internationals and where they focus on is Canada. The players they bring in have U-17-20 experience and whether you believe these internationals are not up to par with a top rated American recruit can be debated. But you cannot deny the impact those internationals have made for Michigan. And as for West Virginia. There are two recruits that I have been following. Kadeisha Buchanan and Ashley Lawrence. Both of these recruits are top flight recruits and both have been capped with the senior Canadian national team. Yes both capped for the senior team at only 17 yrs old. How many times does a college pick up a recruit already with their senior teams? Not often and West Virginia has two of them. Buchanan is impressive because she is a starting center back for Canada and played the full 90 minutes against the US national team in their friendly and in my opinion was their best player. Ashley Lawrence is a midfielder that has some very slick dribbling skills and the Eurosport announcers were gushing about her dribbling and passing skills. She was the best player on that U17 team. West Virginia will never be able to pick up a Morgan Andrews, Crystal Dunn type of player so they do the next best thing and recruit the best internationals out there. And both these kids are going to make big improvements to their club. It should be very interesting to see how they impact West Virginia, considering they are already national teamers. I think its very safe to say West Virginia won big here.
All White-Kit posted their 2013 recruiting class rankings. What's your take? http://www.allwhitekit.com/?p=11957
Looked at All White Kit rankings. For the most part looks on target. Compared it to SoccerHunter and they seem to be pretty much similar. Certain programs like Wake Forest (#44) and Georgetown (unranked) are much lower than usual, not the typical classes they have been getting so maybe they just didn't have much in scholarships this cycle. Colorado should be higher as they have made good strides with the Pac 12 jump. Surprised UConn did not make the top 100. Other than that I would agree with their assessments. Harvard makes a good jump with Midge Purce in their class. Vanderbilt, VCU, St. Mary's, Syracuse, and Kansas all in the top 35 and not your usual names. I do have to use this as another opportunity to bash TopDrawerSoccer. LSU is #14 on All White Kit and #13 with Soccer Hunter, and West Virginia is #12 on AWK and #10 on SH. And yet neither program is in the top 35 for TopDrawerSoccer. That they had Oklahoma State as #8, Texas A&M as #15, Wake Forest as #16, Marquette at #20, and Georgetown at #35 is a joke.
I thought the rankings looked pretty accurate...at least as accurate as you can get with the limited amount of information available and the subjectivity of the topic. I liked how AWK broke it down by conference....wish they would have fully completed all of the conferences though...
Well Henderson has Buchanan and Lawrence ranked as 5 star recruits so that does help prove that West Virginia is on the right track to building a championship team. I follow the SEC pretty closely and I am surprised where he has ranked some of the teams there. I know Texas A&M didn't blow it out of the park with their recruiting, but they are always solid but 9th in the Southeastern Conference? Ouch that would be a huge drop from last year. And Missouri plays a high pressure defense and that usually creates a lot of chaos for teams. I don't know if 11th will be where they will end up in. And South Carolina is very interesting. They were 10th in their conference and barely snuck into the SEC playoffs. Their problems have been scoring goals which they don't. They rely on Sabrina D'Angelo to win games and she nearly did for USC against Texas A&M when she pushed the game into overtime. Can they fix their goal scoring problems in one year and come in second in the SEC? Agree with where the ACC is set up and the Pac12, I think Penn State will still be around near the top in the BIG10 though I think its Michigan's year. They look strong, they didn't lose anyone too important with the exception of Kopmeyer, but other then her their team has their core and is loaded. BigXII I think West Virginia will dominate this year, anyone that says this is Oklahoma's year will be proven wrong I am sure. The WCC will be interesting. BYU has a great year in 2012, but a year can make a big difference when they lose a good chunk of their top players and unlike Texas A&M I am not sure they can recover from that. I expect a down year for them. Portland looks like they reloaded with some good talent and I think this will be their year. Not even going to go into the mess that is the Big East or American Athletic. At least it allowed Notre Dame to play this year in the ACC, one year quicker then I thought. This should hopefully give Mandy Laddish more recognition for what a wonderful player this girl is. She just doesn't get enough credit for the stuff she does.
I'm a Vandy shill, I know, but this incoming class does look really good. #27 on an AWK list is pretty remarkable. After years of less than optimal results, I would love to see them do well.
Schools with rankings that kind of surprised me (ranked higher than usual....from what I remember)....It will be interesting to see how these classes help the records of the schools....plus I like rooting for the underdogs... 11. Clemson 16. Cal 20. Harvard 21. South Carolina 25. South Florida 27. Vanderbilt 49. Richmond 67. James Madison 84. Central Connecticut State 87. Hartford Couple of conference recruiting rankings that I found interesting...and maybe somewhat atypical... Conferences: Colonial 1. James Madison 2. College of Charleston 3. Towson 4. Delaware 5. Northeastern 6. William & Mary Atlantic 10 1. VCU 2. Richmond 3. Dayton 4. UMass Big South 1. Campbell 2. Longwood 3. UNC Asheville 4. High Point 5. Charleston Southern 6. Coastal Carolina
Yeah I'm with you in college soccer, I root for the underdogs, I don't enjoy seeing dynasties, so again not a Tarheel fan, I want the underdogs to have a fighting chance at the title.
Forgedias-- yes I agree - enough of the 36 player squads and massive talent pools going to the dynasties with their direct play. Enough of the coaches that play kids off against others and make weak excuses dumping them or forcing them to leave - do your homework. I'm rooting for the Virginia's (both of them)- Texas A M -and the likes of the underrated programs and the conferences that are up and coming like .....San Diego State - Baylor - LSU - Marquette - California - Oregon State ....Michigan. I hope that parents of the top kids start to see opportunities that balance out the overall competition. This thread has been awesome - so many learning opportunities - I cant wait to see how the teams start to shake down and how the new recruits and programs that have been mentioned with great incoming classes - start to have influence.
Its why I believe the SEC has a chance of making progress in this department. Stanford is another but I want other teams to be in the mix.
I am working on getting my final 2013 recruiting class rankings out. There are always issues to consider as I try to be internally consistent so that year-to-year comparisons will be meaningful. One of those issues that vexed me this year was how to treat transfers. I'd like some feedback from any of you who would care to. Recall that I used to simply add in the the transfers who made a difference. However, last year there were two instances where a strong player in a class coming in was seemingly directly counterbalanced by an equally strong transfer going out. I tried to take that into account, but now do not think that I should continue such a method. Keeping mind that the underlying assumption is that a stronger recruiting class stands as a marker of future potential for the teams success. This is what interests fans hoping for success on the field over the life of the incoming class. While adding a strong transfer player should help the class rating of the receiving team, should it affect the donating team's rating of its incoming class as recognition that the future (2 usually) years on the pitch will be weakened? ......For example, does Taylor Uhl represent a bigger loss to Minnesota than she will be a gain for Stanford? On the other hand, Olivia Brannon may have a much bigger impact on Michigan than she did at Virginia (although she was a starter and obviously important to Virginia.) The same might be said for Lexi Harris leaving Texas to play at TCU. However, there is no question and Tennessee will profit greatly from transfer Megan Erskine (ex U-20 national pool player) while her previous school (JUCO Ventura College) won't mind a bit! The bottom line for me is that colleges lose players for all kinds of reasons (injury, academic reasons, personal reasons, etc) and the loss of a player should not somehow influence the rating of an incoming class. So I am pretty set on taking the position going forward that the incoming class stands on its own as a marker of future potential for the team regardless of simultaneous loss of strong transfers out at the same time. Which brings up that issue of how to rate the transfers coming in. They will contribute on the pitch for one to three years so maybe they shouldn't be given full credit. On the other hand, they are more experienced and could potentially contribute more than a frosh learning the ropes. Should then be considered as a member of their own class and not the current one coming in? Perhaps the best solution would be to rate the incoming freshman class and then have a separate additive factor for any transfers coming in. But then this is cumbersome and it's just easier to go back to the old method and include them with the incoming class because that is how most fans will see it. Suggestions? (I hope to get this all wrapped up and get the final rating out within a day or so.)
I think that if you're not going to subtract from teams that lose transfers, then you should not add to teams that receive transfers. Alternatively, do both but use for transfers the same rating method you use for incoming frosh (e.g., youth national team experience). I think I prefer the former. If you want -- or someone else can do it -- maintain a completely separate system for transfers. From my perspective, I don't really look at the incoming class ratings as a measure of how a team will do. If we had enough years' data, we could actually run a good system to compare team results to incoming class ratings, but I don't think anyone has done that yet. Rather, at this point, I look at the ratings as an indication of the recruiting skills of coaching staffs. As I've said before, I would love to see enough years' incoming class rating data to be able to run a comparison of incoming class ratings to team outcomes. I think that would give a great measure of coaches' coaching talents -- as distinguished from recruiting talents.
Indeed, I have been wanting to do a recruiting versus results for some time now. I've been at this long enough that I have 4 years of game results data. (I started doing this when Soccer Buzz disappeared.) I'll try to get to this project either soon, or next winter. (By then I'll have five years.) A agree with you that recruited class strength is not supposed to be a measure of how the team will do, but every coach and fan knows that unless you have the fast horses you can not win many races. The strength of the recruited class becomes a marker of POTENTIAL team performance assuming, as you say, that coaching is also there. With regard to adding or subtracting for transfers, it seems confusing to co-mingle the transfers with the incoming freshman class. The potential with the incoming freshman class is that they will be presumably developing together for four years. A transfer has different experience and a different expectation as to her position on the team (ie less time to make the splash.) Or from the other side why is it fair to down grade a freshman class strength because a talented senior transferred out or broke a leg? I'm still not clear about this. Other rankings simply add the significant transfers into the incoming class and call it a day. (Nothing is subtracted by injury, transfers out, etc.) This seems to be what fans are used to and expect.
I don't get the rationale for arguing that transfers out should be factored into a recruiting class at all. Aren't recruiting classes and thus recruiting class rankings all about what's coming in and not what's going out? I rank transfers on the same 1-100 scale that I give to each freshman/JUCO/international player coming in. At the same time though, I look at things very strictly for a lot of the reasons listed above. For example, for my rankings for this season's class, I rated about fifty transfers that I could find and confirm. Just eighteen of those players ranked higher than ten points on my scale. Only ten ranked higher than twenty-five points. Just four ranked higher than fifty points. And only Taylor Uhl (who got a full 100/100 points) was ranked higher than seventy-five points. Do these players have less time (in some cases far less time) to make an impact than a true freshman? Sure. But the very best of these players have shown they can excel against college competition, something all the true freshmen haven't at this point. I think it'd be foolish to discount that when compiling rankings. Just my two cents. EDIT: Oh, one more thing. I do take into account injuries and transfers out...in a different kind of way, I guess. I devised a predictions engine for the season ahead as a bit of an experiment, and two key components are starters lost and top talent lost. Transfers out, especially of players the calibre of Uhl, do have a very real impact in those projections.
I also don't think that transfers should be taken into consideration during the ranking of recruiting classes...I think their impact analysis probably fits better in a projection of how a team will do in the upcoming year/years based on the quality of the transfer plus the recruiting classes. It would take a lot of work to figure out how recruiting classes impact teams because if done right you would have to look at the amount of playing time that each recruit gets as a freshman, sophomore, junior, etc...and find a way to place a value on their contribution to the team, which would be difficult. I'm not saying that I hope someone doesn't do it....just that it will be very time consuming.
FINAL 2013 RECRUITING CLASS RANKING My final version of the 2013 class recruiting ranking is below... some significant and interesting issues pop out of the data. First, this is the strongest class of entering freshmen ever. I have been trying to be very consistent in my application of player rankings now over 5 years and as a whole, the numbers of high quality players are greater than ever. The strength of the 50th ranked team this year would have been ranked at #27 last year (a weak year) and at the 44th spot in 2011, the 39th spot in 2010, and the 28th rank in 2009. Not only is the pool of American players getting stronger and deeper, but this year marks a real spike in quality internationals. At the D-I level, a good number of schools are taking a page from Florida State and loading upon foreign talent. Clearly, the level of talent internationally is also increasing and American Colleges are charging into that market. Another interesting fact that this year there are seemingly more impact transfers than there have ever been. Usually I think that I see about 3 or 4 transfers that will make an immediate and tangible difference to the receiving team (and negatively to the donating team too!), but this year I am looking at perhaps 10 such transfers -and two at the highest level. How about impact players like Uhl to Stanford, Newfield to UNC, Brannon to Michigan, Armstrong to Connecticut, Erskine to Tennessee, Gomez-Junco to LSU, Harris to TCU, Kobashigawa to Xavier, Shultz back to Minnesota, and Steinlage to Virginia. And I've undoubtedly missed some. There are players who may not have the national or ODP credentials of the foregoing ten, but should make significant impacts on their new teams... like Lia Belizzi to Providence or Shelby Soldat Georgia State. Then there are the interesting possibilities like Hayden Gibson to Hawaii or Chelsea Williams to Florida State. Both of these kids led their former teams in scoring & shooting for two years...will that habit translate into helping stronger teams? [Note: the numbers in parenthesis on the list denote the difference that a transfer actually made to that particular class. -There were only two cases (Michigan and Virginia) where a big jump resulted.] OK... Looking at the top ten first. As I have pointed out before, there is no meaningful difference in the top three this year. Choose UNC, Stanford, or UCLA in any order. UCLA has Darien Jenkins and Ganny Miranda on the list. Both were regular starters on the 2012 US U17 World Cup team and played full 90s. Jenkins has recently traveled with the U20s while Miranda is practicing with U20s and has gotten herself named the California state POY. Right behind them is Lauren Kaskie who also was sent to represent the US at the U17 World Cup, and got on the field for two games. Zoey Golraski has come on strong and played with Jenkins on the U20 12-Nations tournament starting 2 of three games. Claire Winter was on the national U15 pool and is a very capable Region IV ODP player, as is Alissa Alarab. Then you have Annia Alvarado a best 11 selection at the 2012 USYS national championships and Lauren Rodriguez who is a local club and HS star. This adds up to a 10.22 score. Stanford also has two regular 90-minute players from the 2012 national U17 team -Maddie Bauer and Jane Campbell. Top notch. Then add in long-time national team player Stephanie Amack who was the only high school player on the champion 2012 US U20 World Cup squad. This Stanford class is bolstered by U15, U18, and now U20 player Ryan Walker, U18 camper Carly Olszewski, and ECNL all-event player Nathalie Marie. Throw in two more solid California players and get a 10.12 score...before super-scorer transfer Taylor Uhl is considered and then get a 10.32 for the Cardinal. UNC takes a different approch to the top -numbers. The Tarheels also have signed three players from the 2012 US U17 World Cup team, but not regular starters. Joanna Boyles did not play in the final series and Emily Bruder subbed in late in two games. Only Amber Munerlyn appeared in three games, starting two. But backing up this top tier, UNC has Jenny Chiu, the Mexican U17 captain, Cameron Castleberry a local U-18 camper, and transfer Alexa Newfield a proven scorer who was a 2010 U20 call up while in high school. Then layer this with another U18 camper and two solid ODP players. Next, add in four more players with "potential" and think about what UNC fans have come to expect --that every year one or two of the "lesser-knowns" rise up and command starting positions. A 10.45 score represents this recruiting class. The next 5 classes are essentially the same strength and form the next tier. Duke leads the pack with three U17 Wold Cup players (2 US and a Canadian) and a great supporting cast of four more skilled players. Notre Dame is next with Morgan Andrews, the consensus #1 player, plus a fine group of 7 more solid players, 5 of whom have been involved in national team camps or pools. With national standout Miranda Freeman, U20 team member Kayla Mills, and Mexican international Tanya Samarzich, USC is nonetheless edged out by Clemson as the next team in this tier. Clemson? Yes, by gawd, Clemson. With this class, Eddie Radwanski is making great strides at moving the Tigers of out the ACC cellar. Anchored by two U17 World Cup players (US & Canadian) this 11-member class is packed with solid quality including 2 more US U17 pool players and 4 regional ODP players. Portland is also in this second tier group of the top 10 and is headlined by Allison Weatherington and Danica Evans backed up by another U17 pool player, a U18 camper, and other solid players, Florida State and Ohio State round out the top ten. FSU leads with U17 YNT #2 keeper Cassie Miller plus 3 U20 pool players and two more solid prospects and a transfer to help with scoring. Ohio State has a long and strong class led by two Canadian U20 prospects. The second ten is headed up by Virginia who got a huge boost by the transfer of Annia Steinlage from Michigan State who should be very strong for the Cavaliers for her senior season. On the other hand Michigan (#14) gets a nice boost from the return of Olivia Brannon to her home state from....Virginia. Usual suspects Cal and Santa Clara find themselves in the second ten along with up-and-coming LSU with an all-international class of 3 Canadians and one each from New Zealand and Mexico (a very strong transfer.) And speaking in internationals, before she left town Amanda Cromwell stocked the larder at UCF with a really nice selection of high calibre Germans and a Brazilian to go with some solid US players. Georgia has a class looking almost like Ohio State with 12 frosh and a transfer. Then follows a 3-way tie to finish up the top 20 classes. Other notes would be new ACC entrants Syracuse at 20 and Pitt at #28; Penn state with an "off" year at #29 (but they may be top 5 next year); Harvard with yet another solid class headlined by U17 YNT star Midge Purce; and Hawaii(?!) with Mexican U17 World Cup starter Hallie Hernandez plus two former (US) U15 pool players and a goal scoring transfer giving the Rainbow Wahine a #24 ranking, their best class ever. While Miami (FL) held on to its solid class (#37) after coach Tom Anagnost was abruptly let go, new coach Mary-Frances Monroe will have to hustle to keep the recruiting lid on. On the conference front, from the top 50 classes, the ACC grabbed 13 (5 top 10), the PAC12 took 6 (3 top 10), the SEC has 9 (no top 10), and the Big 10 has 5 (1 top 10). The WCC has the other top 10 (Portland) and 2 in the top 50. That's 35 of the top 50 in 5 conferences. (Note: The Big 10 will have Maryland and Rutgers as top-50 classes next year, and top-50 Louisville fill fit right in with the ACC.) Sooo.... As always, don't take any of this too seriously. Any scores within 0.5 of each other can be viewed as practically equivalent. Thanks once again to cbg for his incredible service to us fans with his collection of commitments and other data. (Errors pointed out to me are always appreciated.) 2013 D-I Recruiting Classes 1. 10.45 (+.2) UNC 2. 10.32 (+.2) Stanford 3. 10.22 UCLA 4. 9.40 Duke 5. 9.37 Notre Dame 6. 9.32 Clemson 7. 9.29 USC 8. 9.17 Portland 9. 8.88 (+.1) Florida State 10. 8.52 (+.1) Ohio State 11. 8.43 (+.76) Virginia 12. 8.35 (+.2) LSU 13. 8.30 California 14. 8.25 (+.48) Michigan 15. 8.24 (+.15) Georgia 16. 8.17 (+.1) UCF & Santa Clara 18. 7.87 BC, West Virginia, & Wisconsin 21. 7.53 Maryland & Syracuse 23. 7.50 Harvard 24. 7.48 (+.1) Hawaii 25. 7.45 South Carolina 26. 7.40 UNC-G 27. 7.35 Oklahoma State 28. 7.31 Pittsburgh 29. 7.20 Penn State 30. 7.15 Memphis 31. 7.10 Washington 32. 7.05 Illinois 33. 7.03 (+.01) Arizona State 34. 6.97 Vanderbilt 35. 6.92 Alabama 36. 6.90 Kentucky 37. 6.87 Miami (Fl) & Wake Forest 39. 6.79 (+.15) Connecticut 40. 6.77 Rutgers, South Florida, (+.1) St Mary's, & TAMU 44. 6.70 Louisville 45. 6.67 Auburn, Baylor, & Princeton 48. 6.64 (+.11) Tennessee 49. 6.53 Marquette 50. 6.43 Cincinnati, Florida, & NCSU
Whew. I think your rankings are reasonably close to mine. As it should be since we approach them with pretty much the same rationale, though how we scale things are different. One question or two, actually. How closely do you examine rosters when looking for new players? I've found that recruiting announcements aren't necessarily perfect. South Florida has a couple of German youth internationals that I would have totally missed had I not combed through their 2013 roster that was posted. Also, how do you decide how to rank international players? I settled on a scale based on the competitive performance of the highest age group team they've played with. Not perfect, but internationals seem to be a lot harder to definitively grade out. Great job as always.
To answer your questions.... How closely do I examine actual rosters? If I am trying to pin down something about a team then I try to look very closely at the roster. However, this business being a real potential time sink (especially for one who has a full-time job and a commute) I do get lazy and don't comb through all possible rosters thinking that certain schools will not be adding anything...... and your example of South Florida has certainly caught me flat-footed. Ouch! My (obviously incorrect 3:00 am) thinking was that so late in the game schools such as South Florida surely wouldn't have additions. But that is laziness and schools sometimes do just slide players on to rosters with out making a formal announcement. (Week before last both Boston College and Florida State slid players on to their previously posted rosters, but I knew to look for those.) Dang. Did I miss any more? In any case, I'll have to go back and correct my posting to include South Florida. With regard to rating international players, I can only go on general principals unless I know facts about the player (and 99% of the time I know very little.) They key for me is to first rank the general women's soccer culture of the country (which biases specific accolades) and then within that range to try to figure out where the player stands. As you know about my system, I try to make several distinctions about the the accolade claims usually dividing into three tiers. (In your system perhaps a 30-point spread in each cultural setting.) "Played on the U17 national team" is about useless unless I can find more data. (Otherwise I take a low default.) For instance, I try to determine if the players attended one camp or many, or was on the traveling squad. If they did travel, which games did they travel to? (The friendlies or the important tournaments?) Then I then go looking for game reports and rosters. Who started the big important games, and who started on the potentially lopsided contests when both coaches are likely to be resting their stars? Who regularly plays a full 90 and who usually gets taken out at half time or before? Who are the first subs in, and who gets token minutes at the end? Was this player a leader or spokesperson for the team, or were they in the background. Do they occasionally get carded (a good thing) or are they a bit timid or too aggressive. If I can find such information I feel a lot more confident about ranking players... internationals or domestic. As an example, within the cultural context of, let's say, Ireland the very top U17s might get an 8 from me and those who only went to a few national camps would be getting a 6. In the US, the very top "game changer" players get a 10 (perhaps only a total of 5 or 6) while the remainder of the traveling squads gets 9s. Those who travel only to a few friendlies and who primarily go to camps get 8s at the older ages, or only 7s at the young ages. The same kind of thinking goes into the ODP arena. Did a player claiming to be ODP go to a single evaluation camp or weekend; did they play on a state ODP team; were they on a regional pool and, if so, did they play regularly in the interregional games? So I can slice the ODP accolade pretty precisely if I know more about the player in question. As you well know this kind of research can eat up your night and so from exhaustion or laziness, mistakes are made. As I often say, don't take this too seriously.... but do I take my own advice? Thanks for your comments. And thanks for pointing out my mistaken omission of South Florida. I'll get that corrected in about 6 hours.
Correction to 2013 Class Rankings As per the discussion in the above post, I need to correct an omission in my final 2013 D-I women' soccer recruiting class rankings. Below is the revised listing. (Essentially everything is the same except for the South Florida insertion which then drops Cincinnati, Florida, and NCSU from the top 50. 2013 D-I Recruiting Classes (Revised 8/6/13) 1. 10.45 (+.2) UNC 2. 10.32 (+.2) Stanford 3. 10.22 UCLA 4. 9.40 Duke 5. 9.37 Notre Dame 6. 9.32 Clemson 7. 9.29 USC 8. 9.17 Portland 9. 8.88 (+.1) Florida State 10. 8.52 (+.1) Ohio State 11. 8.43 (+.76) Virginia 12. 8.35 (+.2) LSU 13. 8.30 California 14. 8.25 (+.48) Michigan 15. 8.24 (+.15) Georgia 16. 8.17 (+.1) UCF & Santa Clara 18. 8.05 South Florida 19. 7.87 BC, West Virginia, & Wisconsin 22. 7.53 Maryland & Syracuse 24. 7.50 Harvard 25. 7.48 (+.1) Hawaii 26. 7.45 South Carolina 27. 7.40 UNC-G 28. 7.35 Oklahoma State 29. 7.31 Pittsburgh 30. 7.20 Penn State 31. 7.15 Memphis 32. 7.10 Washington 33. 7.05 Illinois 34. 7.03 (+.01) Arizona State 35. 6.97 Vanderbilt 36. 6.92 Alabama 37. 6.90 Kentucky 38. 6.87 Miami (Fl) & Wake Forest 40. 6.79 (+.15) Connecticut 41. 6.77 Rutgers, South Florida, (+.1) St Mary's, & TAMU 45. 6.70 Louisville 46. 6.67 Auburn, Baylor, & Princeton 49. 6.64 (+.11) Tennessee 50. 6.53 Marquette
SoccerHunter, I'm curious, when you rated Portland's 2013 incoming class, how did you rate Parkes Kendrick in your system?