Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous


Do not believe any other program had more than 10 (maybe Vandy). Surprises in terms of performance based on the numbers are Georgetown seems to get a lot and they have under performed. Also surprised Harvard has not done better as a program.

Please name a program that does not bring in UA recruits each year that has consistently out performed any of the Top 10 - 15 teams listed above that do bring in UA All-Americans. What is the reason for the success at the top programs? IMHO the number one reason is they bring in the best players. Coaching would be number two.


No one is arguing that some programs are always good because they consistently bring in top players, as represented with UA and IL rankings. The observation is that some schools have a lot of UA and IL ranked players, but don't over time perform better than programs with far fewer of those players. There are multiple reasons, but partly because some programs are "favored" in the process and their commits receive benefit of the doubt that other players don't get. None of it matters in the long run - best teams and players are determined on the playing field each year.


As you state: "best teams and players are determined on the playing field each year." I completely agree with you. After reading all of this banter I look at the numbers and I do not believe that they lie. No time right now to check on Harvard and Dartmouth but I do not believe that there are many teams that do not get a high number of UA Players that out consistently out perform the following:

Maryland
UNC
UVA
NU
Duke
ND
Syracuse
GT
Florida
Princeton
BC
Hopkins
Loyola
Penn State
Stanford
Penn
USC

It was stated that JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and maybe Denver are exceptions.

Please name all of the programs that consistently out perform the programs named above.



Not arguing there are programs consistently outperforming most of the programs above. But, there are programs doing more with fewer of UA players, whatever that is worth. The only program that really jumps out to me as over-represented based on program strength the last decade is JHU. Maybe GT, but they could have been a lot stronger in the early days of UA. USC has almost as many UA as programs that have been around a lot longer with many top 20 seasons. That doesn't mean the JHU, GT and USC girls named to UA weren't deserving. There are other factors at play. Penn and PSU seem under-represented compared to some programs with more UA. ND stands out most to me as having a lot of UA with good but not amazing results. I think people are actually being too hard on Duke. They've been down the past few years, but a lot of really strong years prior. I have no ties to Duke and it is not a school my daughter was ever interested in attending, so my opinion is neutral. Aside from the past two years they've been better than ND and as good as UVA this decade.

I think UA and IL do their best, and overall get a lot more right than wrong. They recognize individuals and there is some subjectivity to it, plus we all know there's more to team success than each individual's ability on its own.


Well said. At the end of the day none of it really matters. However, I think is was nice to see someone do the analysis and show that much of what has been spewed on here over the years regarding UA is just sour grapes. The equation is simple.... Best Players = Best Programs. It's about the Jimmy's & Joe's not the X's & O's.