It is a fascinating article. But with only 37 coaches responding and the "top three indicators" often including a mismash of widely varying responses, I am not convinced that there are many firm conclusions to be drawn from the study. I also note that the 37 coaches were from what the study authors believed to be the top 50 Division I programs in the country, so players who aren't focusing on that elite level of college play might not want to put too much emphasis on this study. When a college coach from a top 50 program says that statistics are not important, for example, it is likely that stats don't mean much because the player has been able to prove herself though observed participation in really high profile showcases/tournaments (Premier Nationals, USA/ASA Nationals. USA Jr. Team, etc. etc.) or through attending that college's clinics.
I agree with SBFamily that one of the clearer results from the study is the fact that the responding college coaches preferred to recruit multi-sport athletes. Although as travel coaches accommodating multi-sport athletes can be difficult/frustrating, it appears that continuing to embrace the multi-sport athlete, with no significant penalty for missed travel ball events (and I don't consider sitting the next game back to be a significant penalty), is in the best interest of the player.