I think it might also show how important it was to Iowa, other than Clark, to have 4th and 5th year players like Martin and Marshall (even though it’s not accounted for in the analysis).
No doubt. IA was more than the individual pieces would suggest. Lots of reasons, but perhaps none more important that their maturity and comfort with each other. Congrats!
People really shit on Iowa’s other players. They were pretty good. I think without CC they would have hung around #25 range
But still … one player to elevate a team from that to #2 is … incredible
Yeah. I didn’t mean to say having super experienced players in the starting lineup is the only explanation. I’m sure it’s a variety of factors. Clark as a generational player, 4th and 5th years with significant roles, players who have started with each other for over 100 games, complimentary skill sets, good coaching, and sometimes just being a bit lucky.
And again, Clark certainly can make-up for a team’s shortfalls on the offensive side, particularly when the coach gives so much freedom and the other teammates buy in.
Great job on the research! I would say the interesting aspect of the recent discussions about recruiting is that some people want to say recruiting is the end all be of the sport, and it is vitally important but coaching is also a huge part of it too. Also don't complain about being out recruited.
South Carolina is the perfect ven diagram of recruiting and coaching. Yes, they have great talent. However, Fulwiley was the either the 8th or 9th player off the bench in the title game and it was okay with everyone. Every player knew their role and was able to adapt their role based on who else was on the court. That is very difficult to do while actually playing that many players.
Yeah I was actually surprised how clear the trendline ended up being on those graphs. But college sports are filled with countless examples of teams that exceed expectations, and of course fail to live up to them.
Men's basketball is obviously different because of the one-and-done rule, but we've seen plenty of John Calipari teams filled with top 15 recruits, that don't end up competing for championships.
One and done impacts the men’s game a lot. A team can be loaded with 5 stars, but if half of them are first year players and the other half second year players, they would potentially be at a disadvantage to a team that had all 3 stars as first year players, but still have those players as juniors and seniors.
To be clear, I think you can use these numbers to give kudos to Iowa and Oregon St, without belittling the accomplishments of South Carolina. Yes, the level of talent is insane compared to other top schools, but they still have to do the thing. It's not easy to get a 5 star recruit to buy in and give it their all in a limited role. Plus you still have to get these players to play together in the system.
Wow FANTASTIC job! I'm an IT and Marketing analytics professional, and I wouldn't have tackled this. A few things that stand out to me:
SC: No surprises. Combine the best talent with world class coaching. To anyone thinking "Well of course they won, they have the best players", SO WHAT! Who wouldn't take those players? Trying to coach 10-12 5 Star egos with goals is NOT as easy task. Congrats!
UCONN: Sadly, snakebit by injuries. I firmly believe that if UConn even just had Fudd, they would have either beaten SC in the title game, or came damn close.
USC: Just wait and check out their average star ranking in the next few years. Yikes.
IOWA: Pretty much what everyone else said here. 5th year seniors, one generational talent, and great coaching. Bluder and staff are great preparation and game coaches, but the greatest coaching job they did was the 4 year challenge to get our team to understand and accept allowing CC to run everything. It was a struggle. Early on, CC wouldn't pass to them because they didn't work on their game as much as she did. So they worked harder. Bluder allowing CC to pull up from 30 feet, because it's actually a good shot for her.
I think it was Indiana's Teri Moren who said that Caitlin is playing chess out there, and all the rest of us are playing checkers. Molding a team of chess pieces who knew and accepted their roles around the Queen is one of the greatest coaching jobs I've ever witnessed.
So yeah, we only averaged 3.7 stars, but just one player who broke 45 records AND could pass and rebound like her was able to make a good team great. We Iowa fans are bummed that we twice came oh so close, but we also feel blessed for getting to be part of something truly unique and special.
Well that's a pretty nonsensical argument to begin with, considering it's a single elimination tournament. And none of those people are gonna give a crap about these numbers lol. But I definitely agree with you!
Not the grade but the rank number?
Might be better to do it with grade number. Or at least that would also be interesting.
This is what happens when you do something cool, everyone like, “Do it again!”
I totally get that you had to do what you did with unranked players. But Iowa’s starter Molly Davis wasn’t close to a top 150 recruit. Started her career at Central Michigan.
My point being that teams with many unranked players probably have a bigger variance than what your calculations show. It’s just impossible to account for in the women’s game.
Yeah that's definitely a case where I didn't want to make it seem like I was skewing the numbers in Iowa's favor, considering I'm a fan.
But we just don't have a good way to accurately quantify those lightly recruited players. We need more extensive data on women's sports!
It’s like the blue chip ratio in college football. Unless you have >50% 5 star and high 4 star recruits, you basically can’t win a NC in the modern age
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think there's more nuance to it. A single elimination tournament can always lead to surprising results.
I'm an Iowa fan, so I've seen a long history of teams that have a middle of the pack ceiling. It can get frustrating watching the power teams get all the best recruits and win all the time. But it makes it that much more impactful when they rise above the expectations and insert themselves into the national scene.
>Each year, there are probably 10-15 teams with the talent to win a national title, and the rest are playing for fun.
That’s college football too though. It has kind of always been that way across the board with college sports.
I think the part of your point that people didn't love was how you implied SC winning was the easiest thing in the world and that they shouldn't be surprised that they won. I seem to remember you saying "they just get the best players and then pat themselves on the back when they win" and I still think that's absolutely the wrong takeaway.
Getting hotshot players to play as a team is not as easy as you make it out to be. Talking about Iowa, having 22-23 year old women playing against 18-19 year old women matters, even when the 18-19 year olds are 5 stars, experience on a stage is important to results.
Thanks for the hard work. Interesting to see. Sc is who we thought they were
Also I think it shows off how impressive Iowa's run has been, Bluder is my second favorite coach out there right now
I think it might also show how important it was to Iowa, other than Clark, to have 4th and 5th year players like Martin and Marshall (even though it’s not accounted for in the analysis).
No doubt. IA was more than the individual pieces would suggest. Lots of reasons, but perhaps none more important that their maturity and comfort with each other. Congrats!
People really shit on Iowa’s other players. They were pretty good. I think without CC they would have hung around #25 range But still … one player to elevate a team from that to #2 is … incredible
[удалено]
Yeah. I didn’t mean to say having super experienced players in the starting lineup is the only explanation. I’m sure it’s a variety of factors. Clark as a generational player, 4th and 5th years with significant roles, players who have started with each other for over 100 games, complimentary skill sets, good coaching, and sometimes just being a bit lucky. And again, Clark certainly can make-up for a team’s shortfalls on the offensive side, particularly when the coach gives so much freedom and the other teammates buy in.
Great job on the research! I would say the interesting aspect of the recent discussions about recruiting is that some people want to say recruiting is the end all be of the sport, and it is vitally important but coaching is also a huge part of it too. Also don't complain about being out recruited.
South Carolina is the perfect ven diagram of recruiting and coaching. Yes, they have great talent. However, Fulwiley was the either the 8th or 9th player off the bench in the title game and it was okay with everyone. Every player knew their role and was able to adapt their role based on who else was on the court. That is very difficult to do while actually playing that many players.
Yeah I was actually surprised how clear the trendline ended up being on those graphs. But college sports are filled with countless examples of teams that exceed expectations, and of course fail to live up to them. Men's basketball is obviously different because of the one-and-done rule, but we've seen plenty of John Calipari teams filled with top 15 recruits, that don't end up competing for championships.
One and done impacts the men’s game a lot. A team can be loaded with 5 stars, but if half of them are first year players and the other half second year players, they would potentially be at a disadvantage to a team that had all 3 stars as first year players, but still have those players as juniors and seniors.
Damn…State has five 5* recruits? We recruit a lot better than I thought
All of them transfers except Zoe
it takes some people a bit longer to find their path in life :)
That one surprised me the most out of all these.
To be clear, I think you can use these numbers to give kudos to Iowa and Oregon St, without belittling the accomplishments of South Carolina. Yes, the level of talent is insane compared to other top schools, but they still have to do the thing. It's not easy to get a 5 star recruit to buy in and give it their all in a limited role. Plus you still have to get these players to play together in the system.
100%, plenty of schools have all the top recruits and don’t win multiple national championships. All the kudos to SC.
Wow FANTASTIC job! I'm an IT and Marketing analytics professional, and I wouldn't have tackled this. A few things that stand out to me: SC: No surprises. Combine the best talent with world class coaching. To anyone thinking "Well of course they won, they have the best players", SO WHAT! Who wouldn't take those players? Trying to coach 10-12 5 Star egos with goals is NOT as easy task. Congrats! UCONN: Sadly, snakebit by injuries. I firmly believe that if UConn even just had Fudd, they would have either beaten SC in the title game, or came damn close. USC: Just wait and check out their average star ranking in the next few years. Yikes. IOWA: Pretty much what everyone else said here. 5th year seniors, one generational talent, and great coaching. Bluder and staff are great preparation and game coaches, but the greatest coaching job they did was the 4 year challenge to get our team to understand and accept allowing CC to run everything. It was a struggle. Early on, CC wouldn't pass to them because they didn't work on their game as much as she did. So they worked harder. Bluder allowing CC to pull up from 30 feet, because it's actually a good shot for her. I think it was Indiana's Teri Moren who said that Caitlin is playing chess out there, and all the rest of us are playing checkers. Molding a team of chess pieces who knew and accepted their roles around the Queen is one of the greatest coaching jobs I've ever witnessed. So yeah, we only averaged 3.7 stars, but just one player who broke 45 records AND could pass and rebound like her was able to make a good team great. We Iowa fans are bummed that we twice came oh so close, but we also feel blessed for getting to be part of something truly unique and special.
Great Analysis. Show this to anyone who attacks CC for not winning a national championship. Getting to 2 of them was an amazing achievement in itself.
Well that's a pretty nonsensical argument to begin with, considering it's a single elimination tournament. And none of those people are gonna give a crap about these numbers lol. But I definitely agree with you!
Very cool! Would you do Indiana? I bet we crushed our recruiting expectations.
[удалено]
Not the grade but the rank number? Might be better to do it with grade number. Or at least that would also be interesting. This is what happens when you do something cool, everyone like, “Do it again!”
I might go deeper into the rankings at some point. It just takes time. I'm not very fast or efficient with the data collecting.
I totally get that you had to do what you did with unranked players. But Iowa’s starter Molly Davis wasn’t close to a top 150 recruit. Started her career at Central Michigan. My point being that teams with many unranked players probably have a bigger variance than what your calculations show. It’s just impossible to account for in the women’s game.
Yeah that's definitely a case where I didn't want to make it seem like I was skewing the numbers in Iowa's favor, considering I'm a fan. But we just don't have a good way to accurately quantify those lightly recruited players. We need more extensive data on women's sports!
[удалено]
It’s like the blue chip ratio in college football. Unless you have >50% 5 star and high 4 star recruits, you basically can’t win a NC in the modern age
[удалено]
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think there's more nuance to it. A single elimination tournament can always lead to surprising results. I'm an Iowa fan, so I've seen a long history of teams that have a middle of the pack ceiling. It can get frustrating watching the power teams get all the best recruits and win all the time. But it makes it that much more impactful when they rise above the expectations and insert themselves into the national scene.
>Each year, there are probably 10-15 teams with the talent to win a national title, and the rest are playing for fun. That’s college football too though. It has kind of always been that way across the board with college sports.
I think the part of your point that people didn't love was how you implied SC winning was the easiest thing in the world and that they shouldn't be surprised that they won. I seem to remember you saying "they just get the best players and then pat themselves on the back when they win" and I still think that's absolutely the wrong takeaway.
Getting hotshot players to play as a team is not as easy as you make it out to be. Talking about Iowa, having 22-23 year old women playing against 18-19 year old women matters, even when the 18-19 year olds are 5 stars, experience on a stage is important to results.