The problem with recruiting discussions is that we know absolutely nothing. We tend to find out with about two or three days' notice that someone is visiting or may be committing. We often receive a commitment from someone that we had no idea that we were recruiting.
Then, there are the "experts." They might be scouts for some magazine or blog. They might be someone who saw them in highschool playing against Tushka. They might be someone who hasn't thought about how a player with such attributes would fit into the OU program. It often seems like children playing with paper dolls, cutting out superstars and trying to fit them into the OU uniform. Of course, it requires that we accept someone else's idea of what a superstar is.
I don't think recruiting is that easy to follow among the male recruits, and I certainly don't think it makes much sense among women. By sixteen, the average male prospect probably claims to have been recruited by fifty schools, two pro teams, and a Hungarian circus. We are seeing more of this among young women. But, when I see the list of schools that are following some of these kids, my thought is "how dumb are these schools?" I don't see this girl fitting into that program and providing anything of value. The quiet ones are the most intriguing. When I see evidence that there is sufficient testosterone to establish a male ego, I kind of lose interest in the value as a prospect.
It's just difficult to discuss something without facts unless you are sitting in a bar in a stupor.
