re: Remove

We will agree to disagree then, as will most P5 college coaches by their actions. Or maybe we are simply ships passing in the night with different emphasis or with less emotional veracity. The rankings are FAR FAR from perfect and I agree with much of what you say "to an extent" (percentage not ascribed). Absolutely no way you can discount an athlete on a top team, ranked in the Top 10 every single year as simply politics, advocacy or influence. Simply doesn't follow logically. I get it: You hate the rankings. I'm not a big fan either in some ways but there is a reason every P5 uses them in their descriptions of their rostered players. So right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent they do have a utility and an influence, albeit not a dispositive influence on success.

The rankings are simply one of several tools though, and I appreciate their limitations just as college coaches do yet they are useful indicators. I acknowledge the flaws, but not so much so that I am illogical in my understanding of their usage.

The "scrutiny" you refer to is not addressing my use of the term. I don't disagree with the "scrutiny" college coaches use to determine who to offer scholarships--in fact I clearly state so. The ultimate decisions are based on a coach's firsthand appraisal and always have been--that's a visibly obvious fact. But accolades inform whether one likes it or not. It is no coincidence that the same players being scouted by the P5 coaches are often ranked highly or that they are typically on top performing teams. Like it or not, the college coaches look for talented players that are on the best teams that can perform against the best teams. The rankings are partly a biproduct of that, and yes I agree (as I've already stated) that a lot is politics. I do believe the higher you go in the rankings the less politics play in it BECAUSE of the high profile of those players. Performing under the "scrutiny" of the college coaches who come out to see this top ranked player on a top ranked team playing top ranked teams goes A VERY LONG WAY!! You cannot hide behind politics or advocates saying a tortoise is a gazelle when publicly you've been labeled as such.

So "Keeping up with the Fishers, Heaveners, Joneses, Calvezes, etc" is a bit disingenuous to apply the maxim here. I don't have a dog in the rankings fight but I'd find the idea that a player who has worked hard to become the player they are being recognized for the end result as "self aggrandizement" as insulting. But that's just me. Not sure what the rankings did to you, but I'm just stating facts. I know the schools and coaches utilize them as a tool, as imperfect as it is. But only as a tool. I agree that when they go to watch a kid play it doesn't matter what their ranking is if they can't show their ability to fit the program and I know Coach Beth and her staff do the same. However, there is a track record that does not support this suggested disdain.

Pom poms or not, the pitcher that dominates in PGF or Alliance or Colorado Sparkler tends to be in the Top 10 of rankings. They deserve the pom poms. But now it's time to see how that translates into the college game. We all understand that but probability still sides with those that have shown ability to excel on the toughest stages they have access to pre-college (the very kids in the rankings).

Again, we may be ships passing in the night.......

For now I still have my pom poms in hand with sanguine hopes for a stout "highly ranked" 2023 class and a stout "highly ranked" 2024 class close behind getting us over the proverbial hump.