Both Teams Sign 3*s annually. Bama just took 5 3*s actually. And Your Basically Saying These Kids Don't Earn Their Rankings. Measurables is a big part. Look At How Our Undersized Players have faired. The NFL thinks highly of measurables also. These Kids Earn Their Stars By playing at a high level against high level competition. They Then Go To Camps And Under Armour All America Games and such and play against the best in the country. Sure Some Flop And Some Lower Tier Players Will have been over looked that should have been rated higher. Rankings are earned. They're Not As Gimmicky As Some Here Like To Try And Say. Unless Your from a school signing a bunch of 3*s trying to feel better about yourself. You May Be Right about not hashing enough 5* though. And Maybe Juco isn't ranked because they have already been ranked, our because they SHOULD hypothetically have an advantage from playing at a higher level than high school
I am not saying that these players dont earn their * ratings at all. I am just saying that the ratings are subjective. The recruiting sites ranking these players are based on stats, measurables, level of competition, college offers, and who are invited to the Underamour and Elite 11 camps. They do a decent job of ranking some of the top players but they are not always correct nor do they rank more than 500 players. There are 65 Power 5 schools and each year they sign 25 or so players or about 1600 players total.
These recruiting sites are great for fans but I dont think college coaches arent looking at Rivals, 247, and the ESPN 300 when deciding who they want to recruit. I dont think they care what Tom Luginbill and ESPN thinks or where they rank players or team classes.
We know that one of the criteria for rating a player are the teams recruiting them so if the top programs are recruiting a kid, then he is usually rated higher than some other kids. If Ohio State, Bama, and a few other select schools recruit a player, then he is typically rated higher than a kid being recruited by Washington State, Arizona, and Utah.
How many times do we see a 3 * kid get an offer from a top tier program and they get a boost in rating. You also see kids commit to a rebuilding program and their rating drops.
I think there is also a fine line between a some 3* and some 4* players and there a few 4* guys that could be rated a 5*.
I think there is obviously a difference between the number 1 class and the number 30 class but there isnt much difference between a number 8 and number 12 class because the rankings are subjective and you have to take in account for fit to a coaching scheme.
Recruiting is also about the stuff that cant be measured like heart, toughness, coach-ability, and fit to scheme. Coaches offer players at different positions because of the players skill set and sometimes they offer a scholly based on where they project the player to be in 2 years based on how they feel they can develop a player or how much that player grows. Coaches interact with these kids and see them at practice, at games, at camps, and in their homes. Coaches watch hours of film on these players and talk with their coaches and family before offering scholarships.
Yes, even Bama recruits 3* players but there are many reasons for this. Perhaps a kid is coming off injury or they project a kid to develop behind more talented players for a couple of years. Sometimes they take 3* players to keep a good relationship with high school coaches where there may be an up and coming 5* player the following year that they want to recruit.
It seems to me when looking at the recruiting sites ratings, a lot of emphasis is placed on the schools recruiting them. If Bama and Ohio State offered a player, they are usually rated higher than if only Tennessee, Auburn, and UCLA offered.
