Major Conference Prospects, Sorted by Archetype
We applied the three-archetype framework to every returning D1 prospect. This article covers the major conferences. Part 3 covers the small-school names the draft networks miss.
August 2026 · Draft Chalkboard · Part 2 of 3
In Part 1, we classified every D1 player into one of three scoring archetypes and tested the framework against 83 current WNBA players. From that, we set benchmarks based on top-half WNBA shooting profiles. This article applies those benchmarks to major conference prospects.
The tables below are sorted by how many benchmarks a player clears, then by volume (FGA/game) within each group. This is not a draft board. It doesn't measure athleticism, defense, rebounding, or playmaking. JuJu Watkins is going #1 in the draft regardless of what a shooting model says about her. But she misses the FG% benchmark (41.2%, below 43%), and that's worth noting. Madison Booker clears two of four Interior Presence benchmarks despite being one of the best players in the country. What the benchmarks tell you is how a player's scoring profile compares to the profiles of WNBA players who produce at her position. What they don't tell you is everything else.
We classified every D1 player with 200+ career field goal attempts across five seasons (2021–22 through 2025–26), cross-referencing ESPN rosters, draft declarations, and the transfer portal. 1,901 qualified. 421 from major conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC). All stats in the tables below are career numbers, not single-season. For transfers, that includes time at previous schools. Part 3 covers the small-school names that draft networks miss.
The Census
Across all qualified D1 players, Scoring Threats are the most common archetype. More than half the pool scores at multiple levels. But major conferences concentrate an even higher share of Scoring Threats, and WNBA history says they produce the most value.
| Archetype | All D1 | Major | WNBA Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring Threat | 1,045 | 237 | 11.3 |
| Interior Presence | 382 | 85 | 10.5 |
| Specialist | 474 | 99 | 5.5 |
Being a Scoring Threat is necessary but not sufficient. 237 major conference players meet the threshold. What separates the top of this list from the middle is the efficiency metrics that correlate with WNBA production: volume (FGA/game), shooting accuracy (FG%, 3P%), and free throw reliability (FT%). Interior Presence is the rarest archetype (20% of the pool), and WNBA data says it produces nearly as much value as Scoring Threats. Specialists are a quarter of the pool and historically produce half the output.
Scoring Threat
We rank Scoring Threats using WNBA-validated benchmarks for volume, shooting efficiency, and free throw accuracy. The WNBA Match column shows how many top-half benchmarks each player clears (FGA/gm ≥ 10, FG% ≥ 43%, 3P% ≥ 32%, FT% ≥ 75%, FT rate ≥ 25%).
| Player | School | Match | FGA/g | FG% | 3P% | FT% | Pts/A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannah Hidalgo | Notre Dame | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 18.6 | 46.1% | 33.3% | 82.0% | 1.000 |
| Mikayla Blakes | Vanderbilt | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 18.3 | 45.7% | 35.2% | 86.3% | 1.054 |
| Jaloni Cambridge | Ohio State | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 15.7 | 47.0% | 34.1% | 79.1% | 1.015 |
| Madi Morson | Arizona State | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 15.2 | 43.8% | 38.3% | 82.2% | 0.967 |
| Olivia Olson | Michigan | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 14.1 | 47.1% | 33.9% | 81.6% | 1.020 |
| Hannah Wickstrom | Purdue | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 12.3 | 46.4% | 35.3% | 81.3% | 1.046 |
| Grace Slaughter | Missouri | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 11.6 | 46.8% | 40.6% | 80.8% | 1.071 |
| Britt Prince | Nebraska | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 11.5 | 50.2% | 42.7% | 89.6% | 1.123 |
| Berry Wallace | Illinois | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 11.4 | 47.2% | 36.6% | 85.6% | 1.073 |
| Paris Bradley | Alabama | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 10.7 | 44.4% | 35.8% | 80.9% | 1.051 |
| Addy Brown | Iowa State | ✓✓✓✓✓ | 10.7 | 47.0% | 36.9% | 75.6% | 1.070 |
| JuJu Watkins | USC | ✓-✓✓✓ | 20.3 | 41.2% | 32.2% | 83.7% | 0.920 |
Hidalgo and Blakes sit at the top of the list with the highest volume among players who clear all five benchmarks. Hidalgo has three years of data across 102 games confirming the profile. Blakes pairs 18.3 FGA/game with 45.7% FG, 35.2% 3P, and 86.3% FT. Prince has the highest efficiency of the group at 50.2% FG and 42.7% from three on 11.5 shots per game.
Watkins takes the most shots on the list (20.3/game) but her 41.2% FG misses the 43% benchmark. She clears 4 of 5. Two more shots per game than Blakes, but 4.5 percentage points lower from the field. The WNBA data favors Blakes' balance.
Slaughter is a notable case: a 6'2" center at Missouri classified as a guard-type Scoring Threat because her shot profile is perimeter-oriented (40.6% 3P, 40.9% layup rate). She clears all five benchmarks. If her listed position suggests a traditional post player, her shooting data says potential WNBA stretch 4.
Interior Presence
Interior Presence players are rim-dominant with no meaningful perimeter game. The WNBA data says volume, foul-drawing, and free throw accuracy matter most for this archetype. The WNBA Match column shows benchmarks cleared (FGA/gm ≥ 9, FG% ≥ 50%, FT rate ≥ 35%, FT% ≥ 68%).
| Player | School | Match | FGA/g | FG% | FTrate | FT% | Layup% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audi Crooks | Oklahoma State | ✓✓✓✓ | 15.0 | 60.9% | 41.7% | 69.4% | 61.4% |
| Jaliya Davis | Kansas | ✓✓✓✓ | 12.1 | 61.0% | 54.9% | 75.1% | 68.6% |
| Joyce Edwards | South Carolina | ✓✓✓✓ | 11.4 | 55.7% | 37.7% | 72.7% | 59.4% |
| Favour Nwaedozi | Mississippi State | ✓✓✓✓ | 9.0 | 52.3% | 44.8% | 68.0% | 70.3% |
| Toby Fournier | Duke | ✓✓✓- | 11.1 | 52.6% | 47.0% | 60.9% | 67.4% |
| Ashley Sofilkanich | Michigan | ✓-✓✓ | 10.2 | 49.8% | 39.4% | 68.4% | 58.1% |
| Gracie Merkle | Minnesota | ✓✓✓- | 10.1 | 70.1% | 40.8% | 61.7% | 88.3% |
| Nunu Agara | Maryland | ✓-✓✓ | 9.3 | 47.4% | 36.5% | 81.6% | 50.1% |
| Grace Sullivan | Northwestern | ✓✓-✓ | 9.3 | 51.3% | 24.4% | 75.9% | 34.9% |
| Sa'Mya Wyatt | St. John's | ✓✓-✓ | 9.1 | 53.7% | 29.8% | 71.8% | 43.9% |
| Madison Booker | Texas | ✓--✓ | 14.1 | 47.9% | 26.4% | 85.1% | 19.8% |
Crooks leads the group with the highest volume (15.0 FGA/game) and 60.9% shooting, clearing all four benchmarks. Davis matches her efficiency at 61.0% with the strongest foul-drawing rate on the list (54.9%). Edwards and Nwaedozi round out the four players who clear all four benchmarks. Free throw drawing is the metric that best separates WNBA starters from bench bigs in this archetype.
Booker (Texas) is the most interesting classification on this list. She averaged 17.3 points on 14.1 FGA/game, but only 19.8% of her shots are layups and 12.9% are threes. She lives in the midrange. Her 85.1% FT accuracy is the best in the group by a wide margin, but her low foul-drawing rate (26.4%) and FG% (47.9%) leave her with two of four benchmarks cleared. If her three-point rate climbs above 15%, she reclassifies as a Scoring Threat. That development question matters more than the current label.
The FT% benchmark (68%) is the hardest for Interior Presence players to clear. Fournier (60.9%) and Merkle (61.7%) both miss it despite strong foul-drawing rates. The WNBA data says this metric matters: bigs who convert free throws at above-average rates tend to earn more playing time and produce more total value.
Specialist
Specialists are missing at least one scoring level, most commonly the free throw line. The WNBA data says finishing inside the arc matters most for this archetype, followed by overall efficiency and free throw accuracy. The WNBA Match column shows benchmarks cleared (3P% ≥ 34%, FT% ≥ 78%, 2P% ≥ 43%, FG% ≥ 40%).
| Player | School | Match | 2P% | FG% | FT% | 3P% | FGA/g |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syla Swords | Michigan | ✓✓✓✓ | 48.6% | 41.7% | 84.2% | 34.9% | 13.2 |
| Sarah Strong | UConn | ✓✓✓✓ | 67.4% | 58.5% | 78.9% | 39.8% | 12.1 |
| Sayvia Sellers | Washington | ✓✓✓✓ | 53.6% | 45.7% | 79.4% | 35.8% | 11.7 |
| Grace Grocholski | Minnesota | ✓✓✓✓ | 51.0% | 43.1% | 79.9% | 37.1% | 10.0 |
| Mary Carter | Wake Forest | ✓✓✓✓ | 47.0% | 40.8% | 79.8% | 35.3% | 9.6 |
| Payton Verhulst | Oklahoma | ✓✓✓✓ | 47.7% | 41.4% | 80.0% | 34.3% | 9.6 |
| Vittoria Blasigh | UCF | ✓✓✓✓ | 44.9% | 40.0% | 81.3% | 35.7% | 9.2 |
| Kiki Smith | Texas Tech | ✓✓✓✓ | 45.8% | 40.9% | 80.5% | 37.0% | 8.8 |
| Ashlynn Shade | UConn | ✓✓✓✓ | 55.2% | 45.1% | 79.4% | 35.5% | 7.7 |
| Taryn Sides | Kansas State | ✓✓✓✓ | 45.1% | 41.6% | 83.3% | 39.8% | 7.4 |
The biggest predictor of Specialist value in the WNBA is finishing inside the arc. Every player in the top ten clears all four benchmarks. Swords leads by volume at 13.2 FGA/game. Strong finishes 67.4% on two-pointers, the highest rate in the group and one reason she's likely to reclassify: her 17.6% FT rate is just below the 20% threshold that would make her a Scoring Threat.
Pure shooters like Gessert (73.2% three-point rate) and Murray (84.6%) don't appear in this group despite high three-point volume. The WNBA data says finishing at the rim matters more for Specialists than perimeter volume. Shade (UConn, 3 years of data) and Verhulst (Oklahoma, 5 years) are the most experienced Specialists on the list.
What the Benchmarks Reveal
Three patterns stand out across the tables.
1. Clearing all the benchmarks is rare. Only 11 Scoring Threats clear 5/5 out of 237 in the major conferences. Four Interior Presence players clear 4/4 out of 85. But every Specialist in the top ten hits all four thresholds. The benchmarks filter hardest where volume and efficiency are both required.
2. Match flags expose archetype-specific gaps.Watkins has the highest volume on the Scoring Threat list (20.3 FGA/game) but misses the FG% benchmark (41.2%, below 43%). In Interior Presence, the FT% benchmark (68%) filters harder than expected: Fournier (60.9%) and Merkle (61.7%) miss despite strong foul-drawing rates. Free throw accuracy is the one metric that doesn't improve with better teammates or a new system. It follows players across levels.
3. Position labels are unreliable.Slaughter is listed as a 6'2" center at Missouri but clears all five guard Scoring Threat benchmarks: 40.6% from three, 40.9% layup rate, 5/5 WNBA match flags. The archetype system classifies by scoring DNA, not listed position. Her profile suggests a WNBA stretch four being played inside at the college level.
What's Next
This article covered major conference prospects. But 1,480 qualified players (78% of the pool) play outside those five conferences.
Part 3 features seven non-major prospects with WNBA-projectable shot profiles, paired with zone-based shot charts and WNBA player comps. Five of the top non-major Scoring Threats from this model were independently recruited by P5 programs, validating the approach. Shot profiles don't care about conference affiliation.
Data: 4.2 million shots across 5 NCAA seasons (2021–22 through 2025–26), sourced from ESPN shot charts. Prospect pool: 1,901 D1 players with 200+ career FGA and 75+ FGA in their most recent season, filtered by ESPN roster data, draft declarations, and transfer portal records. Current WNBA players excluded. Major conferences: ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC (421 players). Tables sorted by WNBA benchmark match flags cleared per archetype, then by volume (FGA/game) within each group. Match flags indicate WNBA top-half benchmarks cleared ( Part 1 methodology). WNBA averages from the PAR model.