On August 23rd of this year, I wrote an article with regard to women's basketball entitled "Can State Compete". Within that article, I commented on the lack of 2014 commitments for State women's basketball. Akula Wolf in the comments section wrote the following:
Got a commitment recently from Chloe Jackson, who is ranked 26th in the 2014 class by ESPN.
I checked the link provided in this comment and indeed Jackson was ranked 26th. Additionally, she was graded at 95 and given four stars. (note the link now shows what I point out in the following paragraph.)
Today, in reviewing commitments for women's basketball, I noticed that Jackson is now given a grade of 90 and three stars. What gives?
As of now, Jackson is no longer listed in HoopGurlz top 100 for 2014, so in effect, after committing to State, she fell from number 26, grade 95, four star to out of the top 100, grade 90, three star.
Shortly after her commitment to State, I checked Blue Star Basketball and noticed that Jackson was ranked 104 by that site. This gave me pause because the two major judges of women's basketball talent should not be so far apart in their evalution of a player. It should also be noted that Full Court Press does not have Jackson in their top 50 for 2014.
I made the following statement in the "Can State Compete" article:
While Coach Moore has time to build the team, signing four or five players none of which are in HoopGurlz top 60 list for 2014 will not bode well for competing with UNC and Duke in the near future.
Akula wrote that I should take heart as State had a commitment from a player ranked 26th in her class by ESPN. Now it appears that is not so, or is it?