Inside the rankings! For years, softball rankings have sparked passionate debate. Some athletes celebrate them. Others question them. Parents wonder how decisions are made. Coaches defend them. And behind every rankings release is the same question:
What really goes into determining these rankings?
I know those questions well because, for years, I had a front-row seat to the process.
I didn’t observe it from the outside—I lived it. I witnessed the conversations, the decision-making, and the realities behind the scenes, giving me a perspective few people have ever had.
When I became the sole owner of Extra Inning Softball in January 2024, I made a deliberate decision not to publicly discuss what I had experienced. I didn’t want to build this company by criticizing the past. I wanted to build something different.
I wanted our actions to speak before my words ever did.
Over the past two and a half years, we’ve done exactly that.
We’ve expanded our national evaluation committee, added regional leaders throughout the country, developed The SERV™ Methodology, eliminated tied rankings, ended numerical rankings for 10U and 12U athletes, introduced position-specific rankings, and built a process centered on consistency, transparency, and accountability.
Only now do I believe we’ve earned the credibility to explain why those changes were necessary.
This article isn’t about reopening old wounds.
It’s about answering questions families have asked for years and explaining why Extra Inning Softball looks very different today than it did just a few years ago.
Because young athletes deserve more than a rankings number.
They deserve a process they can trust.
Where It All Began
When I first became involved with Extra Inning Softball, I wasn’t evaluating athletes or overseeing rankings. In fact, my professional background had nothing to do with sports media. I was working full time in a local prosecutor’s office while supporting the company behind the scenes whenever I could.
Then, in 2022, I was presented with an opportunity that would alter the course of my career: leave public service and join the company full time.
I accepted—but only under one condition.
If I was going to walk away from a stable career and invest my future in the company, I wanted to do so as an owner, not simply as an employee. We reached that agreement, and in November 2022, I officially became a co-owner of Extra Inning Softball.
At the time, I believed I was helping build a company that could make a meaningful difference for thousands of young athletes and their families.
I still believe in that mission today.
What has changed is my understanding of just how essential transparency, accountability, and trust are in a business that evaluates and ranks young athletes. Those principles have become the foundation of every decision we make and every improvement we’ve implemented since then.
The Questions I Couldn’t Answer
As co-owner, my primary responsibility became overseeing customer care.
That meant I was often the first person families heard from after rankings were released.
Some emails celebrated incredible achievements.
Others asked thoughtful—and entirely reasonable—questions.
“How are these rankings determined?”
“Why are there so many tied rankings?”
“Can you explain the evaluation process?”
These were honest questions from parents and coaches trying to understand a process that meant so much to their athletes.
They deserved answers.
The problem was, I didn’t have them.
Time and again, I sought clarification because I wanted every family to receive an honest, consistent explanation. More often than not, the response was simply:
“You can’t make everyone happy.”
While there’s certainly truth in that statement, I couldn’t accept it as the answer.
Families weren’t asking to make everyone happy. They were asking to understand the process.
And I believed they deserved more than a generic response.
The deeper I became involved, the more I realized there wasn’t a structured, documented methodology behind the rankings. Much of the process relied on averaging the opinions of a select group of evaluators rather than following a transparent, repeatable framework that families could understand.
That realization changed my perspective.
I became convinced that if Extra Inning Softball was going to earn—and keep—the trust of the softball community, the rankings needed to be supported by a clearly defined methodology. Families deserved to know how athletes were evaluated, what factors were considered, and why one athlete finished ahead of another.
To me, trust has always begun with transparency.
When families invest their money in an organization, they deserve more than rankings—they deserve confidence in the process behind them.
That belief ultimately became the driving force behind everything we set out to rebuild.
Rebuilding Extra Inning Softball
By the second half of 2023, it had become clear that Extra Inning Softball was at a crossroads.
Subscriber confidence had declined. Families continued asking difficult questions about how rankings were determined, and I found myself asking many of those same questions. The more I sought answers and voiced my concerns about the process, the more tension it created.
Eventually, my former husband and I didn’t just separate our personal lives—we separated the company as well.
When I became the sole owner of Extra Inning Softball in January 2024, I knew I had a choice.
I could continue operating the company the way it had always been run.
Or I could rebuild it into the company I believed the softball community deserved.
The decision was easy. The work was not.
Like many small businesses, Extra Inning Softball had grown rapidly over the years, but much of the infrastructure had never caught up. A small group of people wore multiple hats. Many processes were handled manually.
There was no centralized database, no documented procedures for many day-to-day operations, and much of the institutional knowledge existed only through conversations.
At the same time, trust in the rankings process had begun to erode.
Families wanted transparency. Coaches wanted consistency. Organizations wanted to understand how athletes were being evaluated. I didn’t view those questions as criticism. I viewed them as an opportunity.
If families were willing to trust us with evaluating their daughters, then we owed them a process worthy of that trust.
So we started rebuilding—one decision at a time. The first major change was eliminating tied rankings.
To me, every athlete deserves an individual placement earned through the evaluation process. While no rankings system will ever be perfect, assigning each athlete a unique ranking creates greater clarity, greater accountability, and greater meaning.
Then came one of the most difficult—and controversial—decisions we have ever made. We stopped assigning national numerical rankings to 10U and 12U athletes.
Financially, it wasn’t the easiest decision. Youth rankings had historically generated meaningful revenue for the company. But I believed the long-term well-being and development of young athletes mattered more than short-term business considerations.
So, we introduced the Three-Tier Futures Watchlist, recognizing athletes as Premier, Select, or Prospect without assigning a numerical national ranking. Young players still receive national recognition while allowing them the opportunity to develop without the pressure that often accompanies being assigned a number at such an early age.
That decision represented more than a new product.
It represented a new philosophy. But rebuilding the company required far more than changing the format of our rankings. We reimagined the evaluation process itself. We created a Rankings Committee made up by former D1 athltes and coaches.
We recruited experienced Regional Leaders from across the country. We invested heavily in technology and software. We created internal systems that had never existed before.
Most importantly, we established standards designed to evaluate every athlete under the same criteria. Once rankings are published, they remain published.
We do not move athletes because someone disagrees with the results, nor do we alter rankings due to outside pressure after publication. Every athlete deserves the confidence of knowing she was evaluated under the same standards, regardless of where she lives, who she knows, or what organization she plays for.
Another change reflected something I had questioned for years. We began ranking athletes within their primary position.
Comparing pitchers to catchers or middle infielders to outfielders never seemed like the most meaningful way to evaluate talent. Position-specific rankings provide better context for athletes, families, and college coaches by comparing players against others performing the same role on the field.
Every change we made was intentional and rooted in one objective: Earn back the trust of the softball community. Looking back, none of these improvements happened overnight.
They were built through countless conversations with parents, coaches, athletes, and college coaches. They came from listening, asking difficult questions, challenging old assumptions, and refusing to accept that “it’s always been done this way.”
Through it all, one question has continued to guide every decision I make:
“If my own daughter were being evaluated, what kind of rankings system would I trust?”
That question still drives Extra Inning Softball today.
Not All Rankings Are Created Equal
One of the questions I hear most often is:
“Why doesn’t Extra Inning Softball’s rankings match the rankings published elsewhere?”
The answer is simple.
Not all rankings are built using the same methodology.
That is why I encourage every family to stop comparing ranking numbers and start comparing ranking processes. A ranking is only as meaningful as the methodology behind it.
One of the biggest differences is our approach to tied rankings. At Extra Inning Softball, we do not use ties. Every athlete earns an individual placement within her primary position because we believe every ranking should have a clear and distinct meaning.
Some organizations take a different approach by assigning the same ranking to multiple athletes. While there is nothing inherently wrong with ties when used sparingly, excessive ties fundamentally change what a ranking represents.
To illustrate the difference, one competing rankings company published the following rankings in 2026 for the Class of 2030:
- 84 athletes in the Top 10
- 182 athletes in the Top 20
- 268 athletes in the Top 30
- 333 athletes in the Top 40
- 387 athletes in the Top 50
- 436 athletes in the Top 60
- 484 athletes in the Top 70
- 533 athletes in the Top 80
- 575 athletes in the Top 90
- 605 athletes in the Top 100
Take a moment to think about those numbers.
If 84 athletes share a Top 10 designation, what does “Top 10” really mean?
If 605 athletes are considered Top 100, does that distinction truly separate one athlete from another?
These are questions every family should ask before placing their trust in any rankings system. I could be wrong but I doubt any college coache finds these bloated rankings to be helpful.
Extra Inning Softball does not consider rankings companies that rely on extensive tied rankings to be credible. Period.
I spent months asking myself those same questions because I wanted our rankings to truly mean something. More importantly, I wanted families to understand why an athlete was placed where she was.
One unexpected source of inspiration came from the movie Moneyball. I watched it several times.
It wasn’t about baseball—it was about challenging assumptions, building a better process, and allowing data, research, and multiple perspectives to work together instead of relying on opinion alone.
I kept coming back to one question:
If we were building a rankings system from scratch today, knowing everything we’ve learned, what would it look like?
That question became the foundation of what is now the SERV™ Methodology.
It also became deeply personal.
I spent many nights praying for wisdom, discernment, and the courage to make decisions that would best serve athletes and families—even when those decisions were unpopular.
Eliminating tied rankings meant making harder decisions.
Ending numerical rankings for 10U and 12U athletes meant sacrificing revenue.
Expanding our evaluation process required more people, more technology, more time, and a far greater investment.
I made those decisions anyway. Because my goal has never been to create rankings that satisfy everyone.
My goal is to create rankings families can trust—built on a process that is transparent, consistent, accountable, and fair.
Will we get every ranking exactly right? No rankings system ever will. But I can promise this:
We will continue listening. We will continue improving. And we will continue earning the trust the softball community places in us.
That commitment continues to shape every rankings cycle at Extra Inning Softball.
The SERV Difference
We had to change the process. That began with creating a unanimous Rankings Committee, ensuring that no single individual could influence an athlete’s placement and helping eliminate the potential for bias.
We wanted rankings to be earned—not influenced. That meant no gift cards sent to win favor with the person overseeing the rankings, no gift baskets arriving at my home, and no attempts to sway the outcome through personal relationships.
Every athlete deserves a fair evaluation based on the same standards, regardless of who they know or where they play.
Next, we developed what we now call the The SERV™ Methodology—a framework designed to ensure every athlete is evaluated through multiple layers of information rather than a single opinion or a short period of review.
SERV stands for:
Software. Evaluation. Research. Verification.
Each component plays an essential role.
Software allows us to collect and organize information from multiple sources while keeping athletes, teams, organizations, and historical data organized.
Evaluation brings together our National Rankings Committee and Regional Leaders, many of whom have competed or coached at the Division I, professional, or national levels. Their experience provides valuable insight into athletic ability, projection, and performance.
Research is where complete nominations become incredibly valuable. We review statistics, schedules, competition level, video, coach recommendations, tournament performance, and any additional information families or coaches provide. Every athlete’s story deserves to be told as completely as possible.
Finally comes Verification.
Before rankings are released, information is reviewed, discussed, and confirmed. We ask questions. We challenge assumptions. We revisit difficult decisions. The goal isn’t to rush rankings out the door.
The goal is to get the rankings right.
Does that mean every family will agree with every ranking?
Of course not. Rankings will always involve judgment, and reasonable people can disagree.
What shouldn’t be up for debate is whether there was a thoughtful, consistent process behind those decisions.
That’s the standard we hold ourselves to.
A Challenge to the Softball Community
As I’ve shared my story, some people will undoubtedly agree with me.
Others won’t. That’s okay. Healthy discussion is good for our sport. But I hope this article encourages families to think differently about rankings. Don’t simply ask where your daughter is ranked.
Ask how she was evaluated. Don’t compare one rankings number to another. Compare the methodology behind each rankings system.
Ask questions like:
- How long was the evaluation process?
- Who actually evaluated the athletes?
- Is there a documented methodology?
- How many athletes share the same ranking?
- Are rankings changed after publication?
- Are athletes ranked within their positions?
- Is the organization transparent about its process?
- Are rankings bloated with ties?
- Do the rankings make sense?
Those questions matter. Because methodology determines credibility. Not marketing. Not popularity. Not social media engagement. Methodology.
If an organization asks families to trust its rankings, then it should also be willing to explain exactly how those rankings were produced.
I believe that’s the standard every rankings organization should strive to meet.
Including us.
Looking Forward
I have a responsibility to athletes, families, and coaches who rely on credible evaluations.
Most importantly, a responsibility to lead with integrity. That’s why I chose to tell this story. Not to convince everyone to agree with me. Not to revisit the past. But to provide context.
To explain why Extra Inning Softball looks different today than it did just a few years ago. And to make one promise to every family who places their trust in us. We will continue challenging ourselves.
And we will never stop asking one simple question before making every decision:
“Is this what’s best for the athlete?”
Because long after rankings are forgotten…
Character remains. Integrity remains. Trust remains.
Those are the things we’re committed to building.
And that is the legacy I hope Extra Inning Softball leaves for the next generation of young women.
The rankings matter. But the integrity behind them matters even more.
By Bonnie Holland
CEO & Owner, Extra Inning Softball
******
Stay ahead of rankings deadlines – sign up here for notifications!
TRENDING NEWS
TRENDING NEWS DESCRIPTION
ALL NEWS Stay updated with the latest updates.
CLUB NEWS Club News: 14-18U
COMMITTED Committed News!
DRILL ZONE Over 100 Drills
FIVE-STARS New 5-Star Rating System
INFIELDERS New changes to ranking Infielders
LEADERBOARD Athlete Performance Rankings
POLLS Vote on trending topics.
EIS MOBILE APP Download our new EIS App!
RANKINGS LISTS Rankings Lists!
RANKINGS NEWS Rankings News!
RECRUITING Navigating the recruiting process.
TEAM RANKINGS Team rankings return to EIS!
TOURNAMENTS Tournaments Matter in Rankings
UNCOMMITTED Uncommitted News!
VIDEO HUB Tournament Performance Rankings
YOUTH NEWS Youth News! 10-12U
COPYRIGHT © 2026 Extra Inning Softball TM
