Amazing some of the stuff basketball players go through -- having to take charges (ouch), do those suicide sprints (barf), listen to coaches talk about "intensity" (mind-numbing).

But, really, the worst is what they endure just to enter college. They have to get inked.

		Kids who want to play college hoops must be "colored, marked or covered with ink." Uh, that is if one follows Webster's dictionary for the definition of the transitive verb ink.

This is one of those bizarre rituals I've heard about but never actually witnessed, kind of like baptisms in rivers. Yet it was happening again all over the country Wednesday -- kids getting inked in every state.

Maybe it's seen as some kind of essentially benign hazing thing, like in high school when freshmen who joined the Future Farmers Association had to have an arm painted green for a day.

Now, a great many of these kids at my high school I seriously suspected couldn't tell soybeans from shinola, but they enjoyed the benefits of ag class -- mostly that they could mess around for four years constructing a hauler while simultaneously constructing tales about messing around in haulers.

At any rate, just as all those winners had to go through green arm, the kids who want to play college hoops must be "colored, marked or covered with ink."

Uh, that is if one follows Webster's dictionary for the definition of the transitive verb ink.

But, wait a second, you mean Yeehaw State didn't actually ink its recruits, it just SIGNED them? (Option four of the transitive verb sign: "to engage by written contract.")

So why do so many sports information departments keep sending out releases about people being inked? Well, perhaps it's because the dictionary's slang definition for ink is "to sign one's name to." So they're just kind of stretching the slang, perhaps as a subconscious thumbing of the nose toward their seventh-grade English teachers.

Whatever the cause, it's one of the familiar funnies of every signing day (why don't they call it inking day?).

The other, of course, is that no coach has ever been displeased with her or his recruiting class. They always say "we've addressed our needs" and that so-and-so "should be able to help us."

Call this "the surgery factor." As in, every athletic-department news release about surgery reads something like this: "Player X underwent successful surgery to repair her torn ACL."

The only times athletic-injury surgeries are not "successful" are when ... the patient ... uh, how should we put this ... goes from the operating table to a less-desirable type of table.

Then the release would read something like this: "Player X underwent successful surgery to repair her torn ACL. However, Player X also died. Coach Z said she hopes she'll soon be able to ink some people who will help the team address its needs."

OK, you say, quit being such a smart-aleck (as if I've never split an infinitve or dangled a modifier) and actually discuss signing day. Well, this is difficult. As you probably know, coaches cannot talk (on the record) about recruits until they receive their letters of intent. And once they receive said letter, what exactly is it you think they are going to tell you about the kid?

"I think if she works hard the next four years, she's really going to be a mediocre player for us. Who would I compare her to? Well, remember that kid who couldn't shoot and always got torched on defense? She's similar to her."

But we're still being cynical, and there's really no use for that. After all, the beauty of signing day is that hope can spring eternal for everyone. More so now than ever.

This is the biggest, most obvious change in women's hoops over the last 10 years, and particularly the last five: There is more talent available, and it is spreading out.

Yes, it still seems as if the rich always get a little richer, and you're never going to see the likes of Tennessee sign the female equivalent of Urkle. But we've seen recent classes that had multiple high-impact players; one such class just graduated.

There are still just a handful of programs that really can think at the highest-level nationally all the time. That club is hard to crack, but not impossible. Duke is a school that appears to have done that in the last three or four years. The word supposedly is that the Blue Devils have the No. 1-ranked class, although that ranking process is even more speculative than the infamous AP poll voting that I will stumble my way through again this year.

Safe to say, though, Duke's up there.

Realistically, though, most schools are not going to be able to make that ascent -- but what they all can try to do is get the very best players in their area.

Just using the Big 12 as an example, I like seeing Lone Star Staters at the Texas schools and Sunflower Staters at Kansas schools and Show-Me Staters at Missouri.

Not long ago, chatting with the Tigers' Kerensa Barr, who is from West Plains, Mo., I asked if it really meant something to her that she played for a school in her home state. I expected the usual "Oh, yeah, it's nice" reply without much thought given to it.

Instead, she surprised me with the spontaneous emotion of her answer.

"I got chills when you just said that, about playing for my home state," Barr said. "There really is something special about that. I go home and see the Missouri bumper stickers on people's cars and think, 'That's my team.' I enjoy going to all MU sports -- I'm a fan of Missouri and I play for Missouri."

Now this is not to say kids don't develop as much love for their schools if they're from out-of-state, just that I think it's neat not only for the players but the fans when there are home-state connections.

Bottom line, though, is that players should go where they feel most comfortable -- which Connecticut's Geno Auriemma and other coaches suggest has become ever harder for kids now because they can become victims of paralysis by analysis. They have so much more information available, thanks to the Internet.

Ah-hah, many say, that's a good thing because it helps speed along parity. Team web sites and easily accessible media coverage can give a recruit a look at many programs quickly -- information that until recently wasn't readily available.

While it may clog up some minds and cause more angst in the decision-making process, ultimately, it's for the best.

After all, if you have to get inked, it might as well be by folks you have a pretty good idea you're going to like.

Mechelle Voepel of the Kansas City Star is a regular contributor to ESPN.com. She can be reached at mvoepel@kcstar.com.