The Truth Behind Prep Girls Hoops Player Rankings

Before getting into how these rankings are built, it's important to start with transparency.

Our staff is human. We will miss players. We will make mistakes. We cannot see everyone in the state of Florida, and we do not pretend to. With that said, we are always open to discussion and different perspectives. If someone feels a player is being overlooked or wants to better understand a ranking, we encourage reaching out. These conversations matter, and we're open to them in a respectful manner.

Most importantly, these are College Prospect Rankings. They are not popularity contests, stat leaderboards, or awards for high school production alone.

PGH rankings exist to bring exposure to the maximum number of athletes pursuing the recruiting process who have a chance to play at the next level.

Our scouts are tasked with identifying players who show traits that translate to college basketball, but we do not pride ourselves on exclusivity. In fact, extending the rankings with each update is a requirement. We are proud that our rankings include more players than many competing national scouting platforms, because exposure creates opportunity.

The goal is simple: more names evaluated, more conversations started, and more players helped along their recruiting journey.

As travel ball season approaches, college coaches often use our rankings as a guideline, not a final judgment, to identify players they want to evaluate.

Coaches rarely focus on the exact number next to a player's name. Instead, they evaluate groups and tiers—typically looking at players three to five spots above and below to understand where a prospect fits.

In general in Florida:

These groupings shift depending on the overall strength of a class and have made significant changes within the new college landscape, but the structure remains consistent. Splitting hairs between players ranked a few spots apart misses the point. Rankings are meant to provide context and projection, not rigid labels.

The most important guideline our scouts follow is this:

Rankings are a projection of future collegiate potential, not a reflection of current high school ability.

Just as the Heisman Trophy winner is not always the first pick in the NFL Draft, the most statistically dominant high school player is not always the top-ranked college prospect. High school accolades and production absolutely matter and are recognized elsewhere. Rankings serve a different purpose—projecting how a player will translate to the college game. There are lower ranked players that I would rather have on my high school or travel ball team right now than some ahead of them, but that's just not what the rankings on. It's not who can beat who in a game of one-on-one.

This distinction between high school success and collegiate potential is where most misunderstandings occur. Sometimes late bloomers who barely play until their senior season become consensus D1 prospects whereas all-conference players all four years of HS are D3-level recruits. And that is ok! D1 or bust is a bad mentality to have unless you are truly part of that 1% of players in the country.

Florida presents unique evaluation challenges. Competition varies dramatically by region, class, and environment. Because of that, raw stats alone do not carry enough weight to significantly move a player up or down the rankings.

There are too many uncontrollable variables:

A player putting up big numbers in a high-usage role on a non-competitive team or in a weaker setting may look dominant on paper, but that production does not always translate. Meanwhile, a player producing efficiently with fewer touches against strong competition often projects better at the next level.

Context is critical. Evaluations focus on what a player is asked to do and how well they execute that role.

On the surface, evaluation is simple. Our scouts consistently assess:

At the same time, evaluation is nuanced. Scouts may weigh these categories differently, but the shared emphasis is always on college projection.

Beyond physical tools, feel for the game is a major separator. Players who understand spacing, timing, and decision-making often translate better than those with a deeper bag but little understanding of flow. For that reason, highlights and raw stats alone rarely move the needle.

Versatility is valued—but within reason. What matters most is what a player does well and how consistently they do it within their role.

How players respond to adversity—missed shots, reduced roles, or being taken out of rhythm—matters. Effort when not directly involved in a possession matters. Even details like engaging officials respectfully and asking questions often signal curiosity and a willingness to learn.

If a player is taller, longer, or more athletic, that can compensate for current skill deficiencies. Skill development can be taught. Size, explosiveness, and athleticism cannot. As players move up levels, the biggest gaps are rarely skill-based—they are physical. That reality is reflected in the rankings.

Height, frame, and length matter, especially when projecting to the college level.

With underclassmen, growth potential is factored into evaluations. While these factors are out of a player's control, they directly impact recruiting ceilings. Ignoring that reality does a disservice to families trying to navigate the process honestly.

Florida adds another layer of difficulty: movement. Florida is a hot destination for international players and players from all over the US.

Prep schools regularly bring elite prospects into the state. If a player is living, training, and competing in Florida for the majority of the year, they are evaluated and added accordingly.

This constant movement means rankings are fluid by nature. Newcomers enter. Stock risers climb. The landscape changes—often rapidly.

We would never publish content highlighting players who move down. Our platform exists to celebrate athletes. However, the question inevitably comes up after every update:

“Why did she move down?”

In reality, almost no one is moved down intentionally.

Players are typically passed by:

Unless there is an extraordinary circumstance, movement down the list is a result of others moving forward—not a negative reevaluation.

As athletes develop at different rates, especially during the 10th and 11th grade years, separation naturally occurs. Early bloomers may plateau. Late bloomers often surge. This is a normal part of player development.

Rankings are not personal. They are not paid for. They are not meant to box players in. They are not the end-all, be-all of your career. They're a snapshot of projection at a moment in time.

A number does not define a player's value, ceiling, or future. Development is not linear. Some players plateau. Others make massive jumps through work, growth, and opportunity.

There are far more players who believe they are Division I prospects than there are Division I roster spots available. That is simply the reality of the numbers. There is excellent basketball at every level, and earning the opportunity to play while getting an education should be the main goal. No one has every told us they are ranked too highly. It's typically an inflated reality and personal bias of someone in your corner, and you can't name all of the players ahead of them or simply put a "Top 25" tag on them. Believe me, I get it! I expect people to put themselves or their loved one's on a pedestal and think they are the greatest.

Lastly, high school success does not guarantee college success. Every college player was “the best” somewhere at some point. You have to go in and prove yourself all over again at the next level.

We talk regularly communicate with college coaches nationwide, high school and travel ball coaches across the state, and families throughout the Southeast. Advocacy happens at every level—not just for top-ranked players.

A great deal of time, thought, and research goes into every update. The process is not perfect, and it never will be. Basketball differs by region. Fit matters. Evaluation is complex.

The goal remains consistent:

If the rankings motivate players to work harder, prove people wrong, and keep improving, they've done their job.

This process is about more than a number.