The boys were put up almost a week ago. Where is the girls top 40 rankings for 2018, 2019 and 2020?! They need some love also
Girls Top 40
- Thread starter MikeWojokowski
- Start date
I suggest to extend the list out to about the top 60. Or have a top players list, and a flying under the radar, or under dog list. Because I realize obviously some players are better rebounders. Others better scorers. Then some better defenders. There are better shooters, and better ball handlers. Some have higher basketball IQ's. I also realize some are in systems and under coaches that permit different things or encourage players differently. Then there are some that have better supporting cast thus allowing them less double teams. The object is to expose as many skilled and talented players as possible. Because typically, I don't get into the whose better than who game. I like to say either you can play or not. Then you also have to be aware of stat padding. Because some players play well when things are going well or during easy games and run up their stats. And disappear when a tougher challenge is presented. I already think Norcal Prep and Cal-Hi sports have created top 40 list. I created a flying under the radar list to catch about 25-30 players those list fail to recognize. I'm sure there are many others flying under the radar.
Last edited:
I get what you're saying, but then there will be some that say, expand it to a top 70, 80, 100. Obviously there are a lot of kids that could probably be in the 20-40, but again, it's just a ranking and really means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Have a separate flying under the radar list..I think thats a great idea but don't expand. That's the everyone gets a medal mentality...
I totally agree. As I am the biggest "great player" supporter ever. The best should get their shine on and typically do. I hate when folks hate on great or even so call great players. It's true some need to get better or get out of the game. It's not about taking away from the better or great. But because there are many scenarios that give some players an advantage over others such as exposure and better support, better coaching and better development, many, or should I say far more than you can imagine are falling through the cracks unnecessarily. And someone has to go to bat for the under dogs. I'm just glad our creator choose me as one of the hitmen. Especially sense it's a wide open area of focus which has been neglected far too long. Because of favoritism, politics, poor leadership, neglect, selfishness, delusion, jealousy and hate, among other things.
Last edited:
Those are spot on facts. You always have the great “sleepers” “under rated” players however it’s all subjective who are we to say what these players are. Fans,parents,players,coaches,trainers just need to be more supportive in a positive way for our youth. Players are more talented than others but doesn’t make them any less of a impactful player for their respected teams.
rankings are just a way for adults to keep themselves entertained.
And often these rankings are influenced by college potential. There are thousands of kids who are good/great/impactful HIGH SCHOOL players but will probably never play at the next level. Those kids shouldn't need rankings to validate their worth.. like allprep99 said, supportive surroundings should do that
That is one of my pet peeves: Are teams/lists selected on the basis of high school production or college potential? Or club and high school production? The whole body of work since middle school, or just this season?
The McDonald's game, for example, has no criteria, so every selector goes by his or her own guidelines. It would very nice if every list laid out its criteria at the top of the rankings so everyone could know what was being discussed.
The McDonald's game, for example, has no criteria, so every selector goes by his or her own guidelines. It would very nice if every list laid out its criteria at the top of the rankings so everyone could know what was being discussed.
Clay... how many of those selectors never see half (or more) of those kids?? How much of it is based off of paper stats?? I am not trying to take anything away from McKenzie Forbes as she deserves to be selected, but I have to wonder how many voters look at her numbers over the last few years vs the numbers of Karisma Ortiz without seeing either of them play. By my eyes, the choice between the two of them is pretty tough (excluding the head to head matchup this year) and I would give them both the nod. Obviously I am not a voter, and I have not seen many of those selected, but I would bet many voters are in the same boat as I...
These rankings are a good indicator of potential. It would be great to take a look at last years graduating seniors and see who is seeing significant impact in college or seeing significant minutes at the school/program they chose. This I believe would show the players capable of going on and handling the rigors if the next level.
allprepmedia99,
So true ! And since I've been watching I often see many players who are not listed in the so call top 40 by the several of the prominent media sources out play some of those who are listed in the so call top 40 head to head.
But the point I think you and I totally agree with is that many of these children are working hard and paying dues while some of the adults around them are failing to either acknowledge that fact, or failing to help develop the talent and increase the self esteem to build the confidence of more of these young players. As I mentioned previously, I know of too many children who have been mis handled so badly that they have walked away from the game they once loved. It's easy for an adult to say well they should just suck it up and be a man or be a women. But the fact is they're children. Most haven't matured enough to use the Bobby Knight style of coaching on. Especially girls. It often breaks their spirit having to deal with the favoritism, coldness,and politics that is too rampant in high school sports. So at the very least it doesn't hurt to try to place a spotlight on more good players ( not talking about scrubs) or (the every kid deserves a trophy nonsense). Those who have for one reason or another not been developed, managed, exposed or groomed properly. Or haven't played on a highly visible enough high school or AAU club to get acknowledged for how good they may also be. Or have had to be twice as good to get half as far because of favoritism, politics, systems, or bad philosophies.
The funny thing is all of the so call top 40 if asked could also point to many other players they know that are good enough to be on the top 40 list. They know what players can play and which ones cannot. Ballers know ballers. Many have played against one another for years in CYO, AAU, Middle, and high school over the years. Some Media and even some coaches don't always know who the real ballers are. But the kids do. Perhaps the top kids should help these media heads make a few under the radar selections.
( Bottom line is as adults, parents, and coaches we need to build children up) Not break them down.
Last edited:
I think the list have to take it all into consideration. Because there are different levels at the college level. Often times many high school players have taken the community or lower than division 1 route for a year or two and they then blossom into a division 1 player in their last couple of seasons. Or they are not a division 1 player but are clearly talented enough to play division 2 or 3. And then there are some kids who max out at the high school level and decide playing college basketball is not for them. Some are very talented at multiple sports and decide to play something other than basketball in college. But the point is to give as many high school age kids the opportunity and encouragement to play at the next level if they are good enough and/ or decide they want to. The added encouragement and exposure can only help.
There are kids who are hyped up in high school who end up passing towels and just being a practice player on a division 1 team in college. Or sitting their first couple of years before they get the chance to play. To only give so call super star players a list does nothing for the good supporting cast division 1 players or the division 2,3 etc...
Last edited:
The McDonald's All-American committee does not pick any player without seeing them nor do they base their decisions on paper stats. Karisma Ortiz is a stud, but you can't compare the two situations she and Mckenzie Forbes are in. Mitty is a powerhouse, all the players in that system are good and the system really brings out how good they are. When McKenzie got to Folsom High she inherited a 5-win program that hadn't made the playoffs in 9 years...now they are the #3 team in Nor Cal. She has almost single-handedly changed the culture of that program. It's also about AAU and not just high school...she played 17u since she was a 14 year old, which equates to extra exposure. Every major college and every analyst in the country loves Mckenzie's size and skill set, and she played in front of all of them with the Cal Stars club. All the right people saw her. She was a primary scoring option on a 51-1 Nike team and finished in the top 5 for 3-point fg % in the entire EYBL! Not a knock on anybody because I love Karisma's game, but if only two are coming from California, those two are Decosta and Forbes.
Rankings are set to come out next week. Lists are always capped at 40 (sometimes shorter for younger players (when class is in sophomore year for example). The rankings are based on college potential and I think are clearly presented in that way.
Thank you for the interest in the rankings. Really appreciate it.
Thank you for the interest in the rankings. Really appreciate it.
Paytc,
Excellent examples of what it takes to be a valuable athlete to a aau program or high school! Develop the talent and build the confidence is key! How can I obtain your book? I’m impressed with your analogy. I’ve been following a lot of talent like McKenzie Forbes, Ortiz-Mitty, Williams-Elk Grove a young star rising in Sacramento and a few others. All are classy kids that work hard along with talent as well as a few others. Politics are massive when it comes to rankings which a lot of kids are hidden gems that don’t get a fare shake. However they move on regardless if each athlete are 3,4, or 5 star players and they still find a way to excel and rankings become irrelevant! Bottom line rankings will always be subjective by 1 opinion.
allprepmedia99,
I am well aware of each of the athletes you mentioned. And I agree they appear to have not only been blessed with size, and/ or talent, but they have put in the necessary work that helps separate them from many others who may have just taken the talent or size for granted Dwight Howard style. Talent is one thing your blessed with however skill has to be developed to take it to the higher levels. Skill development can also benefit those with less talent. My friend Jon Sanders of 50 Allstars often refers to the quote " Skill beats talent when talent fails to put in the extra work." That extra work in the weaker areas of a child's game is where adults and coaches in particular can help children develop and excel. But they must care enough about all young children they have influence over. Obviously some do some don't. Typically ego, lack of knowledge or genuine concern, or lack of courage, gets in the way. That is often sad because development and positive encouragement can produce a better and more confident child. I am not just guessing on these views. I know these things to be true because I was fortunate enough to have very good and accountable coaching as a child coming up. So it's very easy to see when it is not there.
I haven't checked in a while on the availability of any of my books on Amazon. The plan all along has been to put together a series of books in audio, print, and digital formats. And then create a few visual products to re-enforce the philosophies on a stronger level. Creating that visual component along with some audio work has taken priority over the marketing of the products at this point. Yet the books are selling pretty well even without much marketing kicking in yet. I am very very grateful for all who have given their support.
I too think you are one of the few that have been called to positively impact our youth.
Send me an email to: bhaps1@netzero.com ( Put "Helping Young Athletes" in the subject line)
Thanks for your interest and support !
Last edited:
Hoopstudent95,
A few very good points about several very good players. One key thing for all players to remember is the importance of continuing to put the extra work in. Because the challenges never stop coming as you continue to reach for higher levels of achievement. Your standards as a player have to be higher than the standards of your coach, if you feel your coach, or school standards, are not high enough. You're temporarily with your coach, but you're with yourself for your lifetime. Congratulations to all who have been awarded and/ or recognized for the work they have put in up to this point.
Last edited:
>The McDonald's All-American committee does not pick any player without seeing them nor do they base their decisions on paper stats
This, sadly, is completely untrue. One year, a girl was chosen as a Mickey's girl despite the fact she hadn't played for three months. Her coach simply refused to give out any information, and no one ever went to any of her games so she was voted in on reputation. Of course she couldn't play because she was hurt.
The committee consists of a lot of people, and the man in charge, Morgan Wootten, who coached boys for years, has four selections he can make on his own, without any input from the committee. His knowledge of girls' basketball is limited at best, and I have never seen him at any event. He's based in Washington DC and does not travel, as is the case with many long-time voters.
This, sadly, is completely untrue. One year, a girl was chosen as a Mickey's girl despite the fact she hadn't played for three months. Her coach simply refused to give out any information, and no one ever went to any of her games so she was voted in on reputation. Of course she couldn't play because she was hurt.
The committee consists of a lot of people, and the man in charge, Morgan Wootten, who coached boys for years, has four selections he can make on his own, without any input from the committee. His knowledge of girls' basketball is limited at best, and I have never seen him at any event. He's based in Washington DC and does not travel, as is the case with many long-time voters.
How was her AAU campaign? That's way more than half the battle. Someone can put in work all spring and summer, sit high school season, and still qualify. Not what you like to see but it happens. It's doubtful that they select an All-American outside the top 40 players in the country anyway. That is true for this year as well. While there are some like Wooten on the board, there are also your Chris Hansens who has seen every single one of those girls play on multiple occasions. Every year there is some girl averaging 50 ppg in some D5 league but the committee knows if that girl can play or not, they won't read her stats and throw her a jersey. It's each player's ENTIRE body of work.
And that's the interesting thing: It's the McDonald's High School All-American Game, so I always based my vote -- and various other votes and selections -- on performance in high school, specifically the senior year. I didn't feel it was a lifetime achievement award.
Now if it was, and if the MCDAAG rosters are selected on the basis of club play and high school play in the previous year, then say so ... if they are based on a four-year body of work, then say so ... if they are only for the senior season performance, then say so. Or if it's about college potential, then make that clear as well.
It's just like Open Division selection process: Is it the MaxPreps' computer rating? Do section champs automatically get a boost over non-section champs? Does head-to-head decide if two teams are relatively close? Are late season games more important? Are injuries in specific games factored in?
It really doesn't matter, at one level -- but it would be much better if the criteria were clear rather than a black box that accepts input and spits out output that might not make sense at first glance.
Now if it was, and if the MCDAAG rosters are selected on the basis of club play and high school play in the previous year, then say so ... if they are based on a four-year body of work, then say so ... if they are only for the senior season performance, then say so. Or if it's about college potential, then make that clear as well.
It's just like Open Division selection process: Is it the MaxPreps' computer rating? Do section champs automatically get a boost over non-section champs? Does head-to-head decide if two teams are relatively close? Are late season games more important? Are injuries in specific games factored in?
It really doesn't matter, at one level -- but it would be much better if the criteria were clear rather than a black box that accepts input and spits out output that might not make sense at first glance.
