Been thinking about this with how inconsistent results can look across college tournaments.
You’ll see a player finish top 5 one week, then outside top 30 the next, and it’s hard to tell if that’s just normal variance, course fit, or something deeper in their game.
Feels like scoring alone doesn’t always tell the full story. Things like course difficulty, weather, and even lineup position seem to impact results more than people talk about.
I’ve started paying more attention to consistency across rounds and how players respond after a bad round rather than just leaderboard position, but even that feels incomplete sometimes.
Curious how you guys evaluate college players, do you mostly go off results, or are there other factors you look at when trying to judge long-term potential?