Monday, November 10, 2008

The Inexact Science of Creating Lists, Part 2

We're sitting on quite a few comments regarding the all-state and all-tournament teams. 

Some of our readers have left comments wanting to know more about how the process works. And we only sorta kinda half-know. We think (repeat, think) coaches nominate "players to watch" and then those players are, in turn, watched and voted on. If a player isn't nominated, we don't think she's considered. But we only think this is how it works.

Others have left comments that build a strong case for why this or that player should have been included. (In many instances, we agree.)

Our overarching response to all of the above, however, is the same as it was the last time we discussed this: Creating lists is really, really, really hard. We know because we've tried. 

And we don't feel it's the role of this blog to either criticize or defend how others create their lists. Our stated mission is to praise as many teams and players as we can as often as we can. 

And we truly appreciate all the help we've received in doing just that.

1 comment:

Bombadil said...

The selection criteria is posted at the WVCA website. It is not all about stats and W/L. See the criteria at http://www.wvcawi.net/allstatenomination.htm
Note one criteria is "The athlete possesses and exhibits outstanding personal characteristics."
Now that is an inexact science.