All club teams, even the top teams have girls that are fillers. Some have been on the team for years and probably should have moved down a level years ago. The kids that aren't committed yet on those teams are not committed for a reason. They can point fingers at the club coaches or directors but if their daughters were good enough they would be recruited. Others may have turned down 2nd tier options waiting on top tier offers that never came. Just because a girl is on a top club team does not mean she is a top player. This process can be very humbling.
Also, everyone should keep in mind that the top college programs' incoming classes each year are not made up of 8-12 players who are are all better than recruits at some lower ranked program. Top programs get a handful of players who are the very best in the country, and then fill in with other players who are good but not at the same level. There could be a player on a club team committed to a top 10-20 program with little chance of meaningful playing time barring significant improvement. Meanwhile, another player of equal skill might be uncommitted, or committed to a school ranked lower, because she wants a realistic chance to play or is looking for specific things beyond team ranking. Every player's end game and journey is different. I'm not saying that players with opportunities at top 25 programs are choosing the lowest tier programs, but there are some players recruited by top 10 programs who choose a lower ranked option.
No program gets all of the players that they want but don't kid yourself, the top programs consistently bring in the top talent. There is always a lot of chatter about the legitimacy of player rankings, commitments, recruiting, freshmen class rankings, etc... but at the end of the day there appears to be a strong correlation between where the so called "top players" go to college and how the "Team" performs. Every year it seems that the large majority of the Top 30 - 50 High School Players commit to the same (top 15 - 20) programs. The programs that consistently bring in the best players are the teams that consistently out perform the rest of the programs.
I do believe the point was that there are some who will commit to a top 20 but not see the field, while others who could commit to a top 20 choose a lower ranked team for various reasons.
That is a legit point, all these top programs need are 2-3 studs per year...2 or 3 out of 8-12...15 or 16 kids play.
