NCAA – Updated Class of 2016 Recruiting Rankings

Through this weekend’s last updated of the big recruiting spreadsheet.

1. North Carolina
2. UCLA
3. Duke
4. Virginia
5. Notre Dame
6. Stanford
7. Santa Clara
8. West Virginia
9. USC
10. Florida State
11. South Carolina
12. Rutgers
13. Washington
14. Maryland
15. Tennessee
16. Boston College
17. Auburn
18. Texas Tech
19. Saint Louis
20. Miami (FL)
21. UCF
22. LSU
23. Louisville
24. Kentucky
25. SMU

Committed Blue Chip Prospects

Marley Canales (UCLA)
Mia Gyau (Duke)
Mallory Pugh (UCLA)

10 thoughts on “NCAA – Updated Class of 2016 Recruiting Rankings

  1. Nerozero

    Some of these classes aren’t all that talented, surprised to see them in the top 25. LSU to me doesn’t look strong at all. Miami, Rutgers, St. Louis, UCF, Louisville, Tennessee, and Maryland are all OK, looks 1 decent blue chipper surrounded by role players. Penn State and Clemson could make this list too based on if that is all that you need. Perhaps that is all you need to make the top 25 on this list. How did West Virginia get the #8 class with an overrated Canadian GK and a role player? SMU too? To me looks like programs #1-#10 on this list have legit classes with talent and depth, with the exception of WVU. Everyone else looks just above average.
    Surprised certain programs aren’t even competing here for these top 2016 classes, such as Wake Forest, Michigan, and Portland (I see zero 2016 commits listed for these programs).

    Reply
    1. Chris Henderson Post author

      It’s 2016. There’s still a long, long time to go as far as commitments go, as well as for accolades to pile up.

      Reply
  2. Nerozero

    Chris you are correct in that there still will be changes to the 2016 class. But I am commenting in this ranking system NOW based in what we know NOW.
    To me after looking over the classes Penn State, Clemson, and Syracuse have top 25 classes. No way those programs with trade their recruits for the recruits that LSU, SMU, and St. Louis have coming in so they can be dropped.
    West Virginia’s class is nowhere near the quality of Florida State, USC, or South Carolina. Very overrated in my opinion.

    Would be curious what SoccerHunter’s take is. He has a pretty good, consistent ranking system.

    Reply
  3. Nerozero

    I have not seen these players yet, so I can only go off accolades posted on the commitments. SMU has 4 commits, three of which are local and no real accolades to them. LSU has 2 commits, only one of note is a New Zealand player that played in the U17 World Cup team that didn’t get out of the group. St. Louis looks they have a good goalkeeper coming in and that’s it.

    Based on comparing these classes with Clemson, Penn St, and Syracuse looks they all have superior classes worthy of top 25 consideration. But I like having this discussion and just want to know the reasoning for SMU, LSU, and St. Louis to be ranked instead.

    I did see SoccerHunter did rank the top 10 classes for 2016. Looks there was agreement on all the classes except for one. The exception? West Virginia was not on his list, which I also said was way overrated for them to be at #8 on this list.

    Reply
    1. Chris Henderson Post author

      I think you’re severely overrating the importance of being in the U15 pool as far as thinking Clemson, Penn State, and Syracuse are easily in the Top 25. In any event, it’s not like they’re far off. The differences really between teams after the top 10-12 at this point are unbelievably small.

      Reply
  4. Nerozero

    I do not think I am overstating the importance of U15 National pool accolades. These kids are 16ish so wouldn’t U15 National accolades be one of the few things to judge them by at this time? I agree in the long run that being a U15 pool player may not matter much. But this is a ranking based on what we know now about these players so it does matter at this time.
    Let’s compare some of these programs; Clemson vs LSU. Clemson has 5 commits including U15 National pool player Julie Mackin who I have seen before and is very impressive. LSU has 2 players, 1 played for a New Zealand that went 0-3 at the U17 World Cup and the other has no accolades. Clemson has the better class.
    Syracuse vs. SMU. Syracuse 3 commits including a U15 National pool player and an id2 player. SMU has 4 commits with no accolades. Syracuse has the better class.
    Penn St and St. Louis each only have 2 commits respectively. Both classes are very similar, they have 1 player with no accolades and also a National pool goalkeeper each. Very similar classes and should be tied.
    As for West Virginia I can see them being in the top 25, but no way at #8. Canadian national pool goalkeeper and another player with no accolades. Similar to Penn St and St. Louis as far as I can see.
    Not trying to be a pain. Just like this discussion and hopefully you can see the merit in my reasoning.

    Reply
    1. Chris Henderson Post author

      I don’t change the weighting of the criteria for different years. U15 does matter in the sense that it gives something to distinguish certain players, but there are also other honors I rate much higher and that some of the players have on the higher rated classes.

      Clemson has one U15 pool player and another with ODP status, which also doesn’t mean much in the long run in my system. Cleverly for LSU also has U20 experience for New Zealand which isn’t listed on the spreadsheet yet. For internationals, I usually try to look up more info to see if they’ve got more accolades than what’s listed on the spreadsheet.

      Syracuse: id2’s another criterion that means very little to my system. Kuempel for SMU has an all-event team honor for ECNL which does matter a fair bit more in my system.

      Saint Louis has Silverman, who’s in the U17 pool which counts much more than the U15 pool at this stage.

      Foster’s not just a “national pool” goalkeeper. She’s started at the U17 World Cup and is on the U20 World Cup roster which is a big separator from most of her peers at the moment.

      For the sake of argument, Clemson’s currently #33, Syracuse is #31, Penn State is #27 in my 2016 rankings. The difference between them and some of the teams you’re arguing against is pretty negligible, TBH.

      Reply
  5. Nerozero

    Thanks Chris. Appreciate the work you do and engaging in this discussion. I still disagree on some points. If id2 doesn’t matter much, Syracuse still has a U15 National pool players and SMU does not. No way they would trade their class for SMU’s as Syracuse’s class is better.
    Same thing for Clemson. Mackin is better than Cleverley; I have seen Mackin with Real CO and also Cleverley when New Zealand played at StubHub last February. And the remaining 4 players Clemson are comparable if not better than just the 1 remaining player in that LSU class. No way Clemson would trade their class for LSU’s.
    The points you state as negligible to me appear to be worthy of pushing those 3 programs over the other 3 (and over Louisville too). But you have a system and if it’s consistent then it works. Thanks again for the discussion.

    Reply
  6. KC

    You mentioned ECNL all event teams factor more than ID2, but, and this is a big but in this class, ECNL has failed to reveal any all-event teams for the 2013-2014 season. (am I missing them somewhere?) This past season was a big development year for the 2016’s Also of note is the fact that the all-ECNL teams are pretty arbitrary. They are determined by the evaluation of a single non-affiliated coach scouting a game. There have been many all-event team players that could have had a single good game or, more likely, some great players that played one game for only 20-30 minutes and didn’t get noticed. The ECNL/ID2 program is much more consistent

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *