Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

The Top 100 Programs in NCAA Division I Women's Basketball:  #26-40

Coach Joanne Boyle's cross-country move this off-season took her from one top 40 program to another. Photo by Craig Bennett/112575 Media.

All of the time I've spent in front of the internet draws attention from my wife.  It's one thing to be a basketball widow; it's quite another to be a women's basketball widow.  It gives the impression that you're having an affair with another woman, or in this case several.

On the other hand, my wife has always given me her outsiders perspective.  She's not much into sports - when I used to be into baseball, her idea of a good baseball game was one where there was a good book to read while I watched.  She has attended a few WNBA games, but more on the basis of providing cheap entertainment to visitors rather than any real interest in the progress of the Atlanta Dream.  (However, things are improving.  She now knows who Diana Taurasi is and can name a few Dream players.)

Star-divide

The Ivy League Challenge

She was very interested in my progress in this project. I told her what I was doing. "I'm trying to rate the top 100 programs in women's college basketball.  This isn't a pre-season ranking.  Rather, this is a list of the best overall."

"Okay," she said. "Then my choice would be - who's the best team in the Ivy League?"

I ventured a guess.  "Princeton?"

"Yeah, Princeton," she said.  "After all, they can't be dummies if they're playing for Princeton.  And they're getting a Princeton education, and they're winning.  So wouldn't Princeton be the best women's basketball program in the USA?"

I had no answer for that one.  I might still not have an answer.

You can't deny that Princeton suffers from a set of restrictions limited to the eight other Division I teams in the Ivy League.  The Ivy League schools are the only Division I schools that do not offer athletic scholarships.  It isn't that a student might not received a need based "grant-in-aid" but for the most part, a basketball recruit that ends up at Princeton is paying her own way there. Some leeway might be granted during the college application process and an athlete might have grades/test scores below the typical Ivy League freshman - but not by much.  The Ivies won't take any girl who can just dribble a basketball really well.

The coaches at Princeton have to make sure that their athletes a) can qualify academically to Princeton (or make a plausible case), and b) can pay (if not qualifying for a grant).  This narrows the recruiting pool substantially, so students are recruited very early and aggressively. 

The academic workload is definitely heavier at Princeton than at most schools.  One could make the argument that Princeton's recruits are extra-dedicated and have the will power to overcome adversity - but so do the recruits from the other seven Ivy League schools.  And yet, Princeton has represented the Ivy League in the NCAA Tournament for the past two years.  By that measure, wouldn't Princeton be an objectively better program than, say, the one at Louisiana Tech?  Louisiana Tech isn't burdened the same was as Princeton, and yet each team visited the NCAA Tournament in 2010 and 2011, but not in 2009.

Why stop at academics? 

Aren't there colleges that have less financial resources than the power conferences?  Who have to struggle in antiquated gyms and beg for equipment?  Shouldn't that be considered in the overall rankings?  What about the role of the alumni association?  Would William and Mary have a better alumni association than Arizona State?  If they did - and I'm not making that claim - wouldn't that give weight to William and Mary being a better women's basketball program, strictly because it can offer its recruits so much more after college?

After thinking about this for a long time, I have two answers, neither of which might be very satisfactory.

1.  Self-imposed restrictions can't be taken into account.  Like it or not, the Ivy League wasn't compelled to forgo offering athletic scholarships by the NCAA or some academic board - it made tha decision on its own.  There is no way for our ranking method to "undo" such decisions and put every program in an imaginary school with equal enrollment and equal facilities.   Granted, some schools are going to be on an unequal footing from the very beginning - can Presbyterian really afford a 22,000 seat arena like Louisville has? - but part of being a great program depends on access to resources, and some programs will be unequal to others from the very beginning.

2.  Some things are hard to quantify.  Wins are easy to quantify.  Conference titles are easy to quantify.  But how is one to compare the academic prestige of Duke to Stanford?  Or Tennessee to Connecticut?  Which schools win those battles?

Not that some institutions haven't tried to rank universities based solely on their academics.  But each of these metrics have their critics.  Too much reliance on journals and publications.  Too much reliance on Google popularity.  Too much emphasis on selling the rankings vs. ranking accuratedly.

In the end, the decision was made to focus only on the process of recruiting and playing women's basketball, as opposed to any of the other benefits that choosing one school over another might offer.  Maybe Texas A&M's alumni can offer their athletes the connections they need for success in the next forty years of their lives - but that success will take place off the court rather than on it, and will not be reflected here.

Click here for an overview of how these rankings were determined.

 

Programs #26-40


26.  West Virginia:  Head coach Mike Carey prepares to reload after previous season ranked as high as #6 nationally.  The Mountaineers lost five seniors including G Sarah Miles and G Liz Repella.  Of those five seniors, three were top scorers.
27.  DePaul:  Team hit hard with senior losses, but will stay a contender under Doug Bruno.   F Felicia Chester and G Sam Quigley lost to graduation and despite coming off ninth straight visit to NCAAs last year might have been a peak year.  Blue Demons undefeated at McGrath Arena last season.
28.  Virginia:  Joanne Boyle takes over in Virginia after Debbie Ryan retires.  Boyle wastes no time, picks up #27 ranked recruit - F Faith Randolph - right away.  Virginia is still (relatively) young team.
29.  Xavier:  Might be the end of the road for the Musketeers.  F Amber Harris and C Ta'Shia Phillips both went in the first round of the WNBA Draft.  Kevin McGuff, who won almost 75 percent of his games at Xavier, left for the troubled Washington program.  He took a successful assistant coach, Mike Neighbors, with him.  When he left, one recruit decommitted and G Katie Rutan transferred to Maryland.
30.  Middle Tennessee State:   The task for the Lady Raiders next year will be clear - to recover their composure and to deal with the loss of their beloved teammate Tina Stewart.  Finding the balance between the demands of basketball and the needs of his players will be coach Rick Insell's toughest task next year.

31.  New Mexico:  What could hurt more in Albuquerque than a 13-18 season for the Lobos?  How about the retirement of legendary women's coach Don Flanagan?  The Pit will never be the same.
32.  Pittsburgh:  Four players graduate, five freshmen move in in what is the #19 class in the country according to Hoopgurlz.  14-17 season has to be a disappointment after previous season ranked in Top 25.  Not a single upperclassman on roster, Panthers will live or die by youth.
33.  California:  Joanne Boyle heads off to Virgina; most of her assistants also part ways with Golden Bears.  Her parting gift to new head coach Lindsay Gottlieb:  the #5 recruiting class in the country according to Hoopgurlz led by #7 overall recruit post Justine Hartman.
34.  Arizona State:  Charli Turner Thorne decides to sit out one year from head coaching after 12 straight post-season appearances.  G/F Karina Alofaituli decommits from program, permitted to pursue other options.
35.  Florida State:  Tallahassee must prove that it really cares about its successful women's basketball squad.  The most attention Florida State got in the national media was when UConn beat them 96-62 for their 89th straight win.  Could be why coach Sue Semrau interviewed at LSU and was considered at Washington.
36.  Georgia Tech:  G/F Alex Montgomery drafted by New York Liberty in first round, highest draft position ever by a Georgia Tech player.  Senior class were all-time wins leaders at Georgia Tech.  Alexander Memorial Coliseum gets complete renovation but Yellow Jackets must vacate digs for one year.  Jackets looking for next level.
37.  Wisconsin:  Badgers reboot after 16-15 season with Bobbie Kelsey out of Stanford a head coach - one good year couldn't save Lisa Stone.  It will all depend on who Kelsey can recruit to Madison.
38.  James Madison:  Sixth straight 24+ win season by Kenny Brooks on way to second straight CAA championship.  CAA all-time leading scorer G Dawn Evans graduates - with 23.1 ppg last season - but doesn't get drafted in WNBA.  She'll be missed in Harrisonburg.
39.  Auburn:  Tigers have been floating around .500 for the last two seasons.  Touted freshmen recruits only made up 11.0 of the 61.1 points per game scored by Auburn, leading scorer G Alli Smalley graduates.  If freshmen don't develop, what does this mean for Auburn?
40.  Kansas State: Three players leave/booted (?) from K-State, including sophomore G Taelor Karr. Many have their theories (but no proof) as to why both assistants and players abandon Deb Patterson's program at Manhattan.

Comment 17 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I would say that for the Top 50-100 recruits in women’s college basketball

the possibility of playing professionally has to be a very significant factor into where she ends up playing. This factor could be significant enough to the point where this is the number one factor into her decision, over academic prestige. And schools with great academic prestige will have vocal and vibrant alumni associations.

The Ivy Leagues, Service Academies, and the other "relative elites in their respective conference" teams are going to have disadvantages to everyone else. You’ve hit the Ivy League on the money. Unless the player comes from a very poor family, she’s gonna have to pay up. Why should I have to pay even $1 at Harvard if I get another full scholarship offer another good academic school like Richmond, or Rice? Also, the student athlete at one of the eight Ivy universities has to have an academic record that isn’t totally out of line from the general student body.

For the service academies, the commitment is nine years (four for college, and five more in the service). Height and weight restrictions could limit some low post players from getting in. Academically, they too should be in line with everyone else, though a significant number of athletes in the academies go to the prep schools before actually attending the academy. For the US Air Force Academy especially, it is in a major conference with the MWC, which puts them in a bigger disadvantage. Army and Navy are in the Patriot League, and every school has students that are on average at least as good as USMA cadets and USNA midshipmen are, so that allows Army and Navy to be able to compete in the league more often than AF can. Either way, a player with pro ambitions won’t consider Army/Navy/AF because the service academy basically eliminates the possibility of playing professionally completely. The same goes for the men’s basketball and football players and every other sport.

The last category goes for the "relatively elite" schools in certain leagues. As you noted with the Ivy League, some of these colleges and universities take particular pride in the purism of "academic quality of its student-athletes" and therefore it limits their ability to recruit, and it also could be budgetary as well. Schools like Rice of CUSA and William and Mary of the CAA are the top academic institutions in their leagues by most metrics out there. With W&M at least, the university is adamant about getting student athletes that are capable of performing decently in the classroom, and this does limit the recruiting base considerably. Second, W&M men’s basketball coaches have considerably smaller budgets for coaches AND recruiting than other in-state rivals like VCU, George Mason, ODU, and JMU and that makes things tougher for them to compete. With CAA football, W&M has been one of the better teams perennially which is good considering that Williamsburg is in Hampton Roads. However with ODU now in the CAA, I’d imagine that William and Mary is now going to have a much tougher time recruiting in the future, and it’s also because of the self imposed academic expectations you mentioned so I won’t be surprised if W&M football sucks perennially five years from now and forevermore. I know CAA football also has Villanova and Richmond which have great academics themselves, but they are not quite as hard line as W&M is on the academic standards for athletes.

Can’t say exactly about how Rice operates, but if I don’t hear of them much on ESPN or CBS College Sports, it probably is a bottom tier team most years in football and basketball.

Sorry about rambling on academics, budgets, etc. but that’s part of the iceberg here.

by thewiz06 on Oct 19, 2011 11:02 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Very nice summing up.

One could have made the argument that, say, Navy is the best program in women’s college basketball, given the burdens that service academy students face. Or likewise for those school like Vandy and W&M that everyone jokes are there to keep the conference GPAs up.

by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Pittsburgh

Pitt’s totaled 16 losing seasons in 36 years and has been to the NCAA tournament just three times, and the Panthers’ lone “championship” came back in 1984, when they finished atop the Big East for the regular season. 2007-2009 was a very productive stretch (and a recent one, of course), but what else helped garner the high ranking? Marcedes Walker and Shavonte Zellous are the only former Panthers to play in the WNBA.

by RP_45 on Oct 19, 2011 9:20 PM EDT reply actions  

Statute of Limitations

You definitely bring up an interesting point about a programs general reputation. Pittsburgh doesn’t have much of a reputation the way you describe it, but Pittsburgh benefits from a decision I made to keep schools that had great programs a lonnnnng time ago from sneaking their way to the top of the list. Namely, before a certain point in time the system says, “we’re just going to pretend that didn’t happen”.

Which leads directly to the question of “how recent should the recent past be?” Pittsburgh gets a lot of weight, as you mention, for having some good recent years and good runs in the NCAA tournament from 2007 to 2009 along with a WNIT appearance in ‘10. Shavonte Zellous was a third-team All American in 2009. I think that Pittsburgh is rated appropriately – they’ve been recently successful but could fall quickly in the rankings for 2012 if they can’t keep it going.

I also wanted to capture Pittsburgh’s potential. They had the #19 ranked recruiting class as of June 2011 by Hoopgurlz.com. It’s a dangerous game to try to project future success from the present, but to me that signified enough potential to move them up.

by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well...

can’t make too much sense out of your overall rationale, but I can say one thing, wherever the real rankings lie….if you think UVA is ranked above Cal at this point you are sadly mistaken.

by CalAlum on Oct 19, 2011 9:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Cal vs UVA

A very interesting comparison to make. Both highly regarded academic institutions, both only five spaces away from each other in the rankings – and both having a coach in common.

So why does UVA get the nod and Cal not get it? In terms of recent talent they’re probably about the same, even though I feel the ACC is a stronger conference top to bottom than the Pac-12. Undoubtedly, the attendance issue hurts Cal. Cal averages about 1500 in attendance over the last couple of years; for the Cavaliers the numbers are in the 3000s. California does have the #5 recruiting class according to Hoopgurlz, but putting too much weight on recruiting is risky – there’s no guarantee that Cal’s class will pan out. (Or anyone else’s for that matter, even Tennessee’s or UConn’s.)

by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

"even though I feel the ACC is a stronger conference top to bottom than the Pac-12."

I love my Pac-10/12… but I don’t think that’s just your feeling – I’d argue that’s a fact that even the most rabid Pac-10 fans have to accept. :)

My next question was, “Well why is UNM ahead of either then?” And attendance seems to be a primary reason:

Last year, New Mexico averaged 7,677 people per game inside The Pit to rank seventh in the nation. The Lobos have been in the Top-10 in the nation in home attendance since the 1998-99 season.

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Oct 20, 2011 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

7,677 talks pretty loud

When you average 7,000+ a game it’s becomes very hard to dismiss your program from the list of greats. But note that even though the Lobos are Top 10 in attendance they don’t crack the Top 30 on the list of programs.

Attendance has a “power law” graph, one that looks like a hockey stick on its side – a whole lot of programs with crappy attendance and a relative few that crack huge numbers. So if you can draw numbers like that, your program definitely has something going for it.

by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

"And both having a coach in common."

And let’s keep in mind that Cal experienced 12 consecutive losing seasons before that coach arrived in Berkeley.

by RP_45 on Oct 20, 2011 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

If you go purely by recruiting rankings, Cal is one of the top 5 most talented teams in the nation

Of course, as you say, that doesn’t mean anything without the wins.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Oct 20, 2011 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think this could be an open question about Cal (and the rankings) once Pierre, Clarendon, et al graduate

You’re absolutely right about talent based on expectations at the point of recruitment…

…so have they been overrated, poorly coached, a bad mix, or just plain unlucky (in the case of injuries)?

Or do we still have to wait and see how the next two seasons pan out?

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Oct 21, 2011 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

33. California: Joanne Boyle heads off to Virgina; most of her assistants also part ways with Golden Bears. Her parting gift to new head coach Lindsay Gottlieb: the #5 recruiting class in the country according to Hoopgurlz led by #7 overall recruit post Justine Hartman.

Boyle brought in a good class, but it was Gottlieb who brought in Hartman after Boyle left, and turned it into a great class.

I blame Twist.

by CalBear81 on Oct 21, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

As a Virginian (with some bias)

I’d say that as an undergrad institution academically, UVA is right up there with Berkeley in terms of the student body overall. However you may want to throw back at me that UVA wouldn’t have SAT numbers like Berkeley does if it didn’t take 35% of its students from a state that’s not named Virginia. I am aware that the UC schools are at least 80% Californian, and I do want the Virginian numbers to rise.

As a full university. UVA isn’t even close to Berkeley because of the grad programs. Berkeley is a Top 10 research university nationwide, maybe even top five. I’d put Michigan ahead of UVA too overall as a full research institution, and maybe even UCLA. Every program at Berkeley and Michigan just seems to be in the Top 10 of the rankings.

by thewiz06 on Oct 20, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

"putting too much weight on recruiting is risky"/"wanted to capture Pittsburgh’s potential."

Not to disagree with the point or negate anything else you said about Cal… and I think you’re constructing a continuum here, which makes sense…

But if Cal had a #5 recruiting class and Pitt a #19, how much credit did Cal get for potential here?

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Oct 20, 2011 12:54 AM EDT reply actions  

Cal vs. Pittsburgh

More than Pittsburgh? :D The short answer would be, “more, but not much more”. It’s hard to make an argument that a #5 recruiting class really means that much more than a #19 one. (Although both mean more than having one’s recruiting class go unnoticed.)

Cal’s boost from recruiting is eaten by other factors, so Pitt moves up.

by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 1:04 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Passionate basketball fans honoring the beauty and skill of the game.

Facebook badge

SBN Women's College Basketball Blogroll

ACC

Blogger So Dear (Wake Forest)

Streaking the Lawn (Virginia)

Big 12

Crimson and Cream Machine (Oklahoma)

Double T Nation (Texas Tech)

I Am The 12th Man (Texas A&M)

Big East:

Anonymous Eagle  (Marquette)

The UConn Blog

Big Ten

Black Heart Gold Pants (Iowa)

Hammer & Rails (Purdue)

Sippin' On Purple (Northwestern)

MAC:

Hustle Belt (conference blog)

Pac-12

Bruins Nation (UCLA)

Building the Dam (Oregon St)

California Golden Blogs (Cal)

Rule of Tree (Stanford)

SEC

Rocky Top Talk (Tennessee)

 


Managers

Natehead_small Nate Parham

Seth_twitter_pic_4_small Seth Pollack

Reffeet_small Jessica Lantz

Editors

Background2_small Queenie

Bowtie_001_small James Bowman

Authors

Maya_small Scotter

Reunion_crop_small Holly C. Tanneyhill

Small M Robinson

Small Ray Floriani