Because recruiting is happening so early, our evaluation process is based on a snap-shot of the classes as they enter college for the first time (transfers are excluded) and it projects the classes' potential contribution going forward based on performance history, abiity and condition.  From the time of an athlete's initial commit to the start of her first practice, she unfortunately may have suffered a serious injury or have struggled with loss of motivation, or experienced difficulties in adapting to the maturation process.  Some athletes may have experienced an unexpected plateau in their improvement trend or have failed to maintain the ability they had when they were recruited.  Others are late bloomers, and may have made large improvements in ability, consistency and execution late in their club careers.  So, a ranking at the start of the preseason practice is the only true and fair way to assess a recruiting class.

An athlete's competition history not only reveals the skill level an athlete has already achieved, it also gives hints of any decline or improvement in ability, consistency, performance under pressure (at major meets) and execution.  Post season competition results are considered more heavily because scoring in smaller invitationals and in certain regions can be less rigorous.  If videos or recruiting profiles are available, they are considered to evaluate an athlete's skill level and execution.  Holes in competition history may suggest a history of injury, although it is scant evidence of an athlete's condition as she enters college.  Major injuries, if we know of them, are considered, but primarily to the extent that they may limit the athlete's contribution over the course of the four years of college competition.  Absence from competition in 2015 (either due to injury or changes in training patterns) is viewed somewhat negatively, while a strong improvement trend in 2015 is viewed as a sign of strong motivation to excel and a readiness to compete in college. 

We also derate highly placing gymnasts that lack the required "up to the level" skill set for college, as a 0.1 deduction in college has a bigger impact than the same difference in difficulty has in the club system.  While they may be able to add this difficulty, it places them at a disadvantage relative to the others.  Likewise, a gymnast competing an excess amount of difficulty can improve in execution and consistency when their routines are simplified in college.  This is common with the lower level elite gymnasts.       

This ranking (while ultimately subjective) attempts to gauge the athletes at the start of the preseason and, to the degree possible, factors in preseason training reports and videos.  Ultimately, we are looking for a set of impact athletes who can consistently score in the 9.85+ range on their events and be a potential standout on their team and help propel their teams towards success. 

This ranking also attempts to balance large incoming classes versus small classes with one or two standouts.  A large incoming class, even if it boasts few "superstars", can provide much needed depth that can be a huge difference maker for some squads.  In contrast, one or two high level standouts in a smaller class can have as much of an impact to a team.  While it's true that a marquee athlete can only put up four scores towards the team's total, we also acknowledge that she can elevate an entire team to a higher performance level and bring positive attention (recruiting, fan, media) to the team over the course of her career.    

How can future success be predicted?  Over the years, however, we've developed some strong indicators of future success at the NCAA level:

• Recent Elite VISA Championship qualifiers, barring health issues and injury, tend to continue their success in college.  Sometimes, however, the change in training regimen or lingering injury issues have limited their impact, at least initially.   The qualification standards for a senior international elite are relatively rigorous and a certain level of execution and difficulty is required.
• Level 10 JO National Team members (achieved in their junior or senior year), also barring injury, tend to continue to standout in college.  If you take a look at the top four finishers in the Sr. C and Sr. D division of the L10 Nationals from the last several years, you will see that these athletes have (almost without exception) continued on to make an impact at the NCAA level.  The primary exceptions are those gymnasts that are hit by a major injury. 
• Top Level 10s and elite dropdowns with a solid history of top (places 5 to 15) AA finishes at the L10 National level have also excelled at the collegiate level, especially those with a strong work ethic and upward improvement trend.  This is especially true with those standouts with a weak or inconsistent event that has limited their all-around potential.  Athletes that have been able to post 38+ AA event scores in Regional or National (including JO NIT) meets have generally turned into 39+ AAer in the NCAA.   And athletes that can post a 9.7+ on an event in a L10 National meet tend to become 9.85+ gymnasts in the NCAA.  There are of course exceptions where a gymnast who has struggled with placing high as a L10 club gymnast, blossoms into a top competitor in the NCAA.  These situations are generally an exception, not a rule, and are often associated with a high level of difficulty and the resultant inconsistency as a club gymnast (which is then lessened when routines are edited down to the easier NCAA code).  Also, a consistent level of high placements at club meets is a good indicator of an athlete's consistency, ability to handle pressure and sturdiness in the rigors of weekly competition.

In contrast, gymnasts that have struggled with major injuries (knee, back, Achilles) more often than not continue to struggle or be limited by these issues at the NCAA level.  Foreign elites have tended to have longer adjustment periods, due to the major differences between the FIG and NCAA codes and the adjustment to a foreign culture.  And finally, in order to achieve standout status in the NCAA, it's becoming increasingly true that an athlete must be capable of some high-level skills on each event and/or an exceptional level of execution or style (grace, lines, expression, creativity and/or amplitude).  And as previously mentioned, the need to meet "up to the level" standards on UB and FX may prove a bit more challenging for some athletes.    

So, how did the teams stack up?  Here's the CollegeGymFans.com Top Recruiting Classes for 2015-2016 (click on the links to see video clips, where available):

Just Outside the Top 10

Just outside the Top 10 are a number of teams and outstanding individuals.  It was an extremely close to finalize our Top 10, with our final selections ultimately based on consistency at the big meets. 

Oregon State has a number of solid athletes, including Mariana Colussi-Pelaez.  She's an elite who has competed for both Spain and Canada.  She's backed up by three L10s, including McKenna Singley, the L10 National UB champ in 2013.  PSU's large class will be depended upon greatly, including former elite and 2013 JO National BB/FX co-champ Mason Hosek and L10 Sabrina Garcia, who placed 5th AA at the 2015 L10 JO Nationals.

Auburn has a large class, headlined by two event champions from the 2015 JO Nationals, Samantha Cerio (UB) and former elite Taylor Krippner (BB).  Denver has brought in a strong class, including Southeastern L10s Diana Chesnok and Claire Kern.  Chesnok can vault a Yurchenko 1 1/2.  Another big vaulter is at WVU, Kirah Koshinski.  Her Yurchenko 1 1/2 and double layout on FX will pull down big scores for the Mountaineers.  She was 2nd AA and 1st on FX at at the 2015 L10 JO Nationals and 3rd(t) AA at the 2014 JO Nationals.  The 2013 L10 National Vault champ was a major recruiting coup for WVU.      

For a complete set of newcomers on each team and to get links to their rosters, see our Top 25 Capsule Previews.