But, they are the best indicator we have. (Ask Geno why he consistently goes after the highest rated recruits. Ratings aren't perfect by any means, but they are very, very good.)

because they simply don't have the skill set or attitude to fit with his team approach......I suspect that other coaches that collect highly ranked players like trading cards simply don't have the vision or the interest to make such judgments and they pay the price for it most seasons...........on rare occasion Geno takes a flyer on unrated players such as Irwin and Bent because they are selfless team first individuals and great students but their usefulness on the court has to be questioned......

I'm certainly not going to argue that ratings are the final word. At McGraw's Bench we pride ourselves, as does the Boneyard, that our coaches have distinctive eyes for talent. The catch phrase now is "mutual interest" which covers grades, attitude, character, all the things you mention and dozens more. Our coaches often come back to Muffet McGraw and say, "She is a great talent, but you're not going to want to coach her." So the "mutual interest" ends. Geno, I'm sure, is the same way.

However, that is the exception! I'm not going to insult your intelligence by believing you think ratings are not good indicators of talent or that Geno has not recruited the best teams over the last 10 years as indicated by the players' ratings. UConn has for some time now recruited the best players of all Division 1 team by ratings. Talent is the key, and the ratings are very good indicators of it. As you say, there are many other factors. I'm not seeing where this discussion is going.

By the way, you chose an excellent example.

Mississippi State played a hearty five (Vivians, William, McCowan, Holmes, and Johnson), all with more than 25 min/game. Their average rating is an unimpressive 65.7. Not terrible (at least they had top 100 recruits), but kudos for Vic Schaefer for spying something in recruits that others did not. (Of course, he had little choice. Napheesa Collier or Katie Lou Samuelson were not heading to Mississippi State.)

Tennessee is a special (head) case, but your other choices of Texas and Baylor are good also. Baylor played seven people with over 18 min/game. Those seven have an average rating of 22. (Notre Dame's six had a rating of 16.2. UConn's six, without Megan Walker, had an average rating of 12.9)

Texas played seven with Joyner Holmes (17.4 min/game). Those seven had an average rating of 18.4, not too shabby.

So, you make a good point with which I am in total agreement. You can't predict who will win by the rated talent level. That's why they play the games, and why we find them fascinating and exciting. However, if I ranked the top 25 teams by recruiting agency ratings and compared them to the top 25 teams at the end of each season, I am quite confident there would be incredible overlap. (Actually I could do that without too much trouble, but not now.) I can not think of one simple statistic before the season begins that would give a better indication as to who would be in the top 25, the final four, or the national champion. Talent wins games, or so all coaches believe.

Sometimes a factor rises like a phoenix to everyone's surprise, such as Victoria Vivians (rated 43.6) or Teaira McCowan (23.8) or Tennessee meltdown or crazy clutch shooting or injuries or transfers or Geno wearing a Notre Dame sweatshirt or whatever. It's why we love the game.