The first flaw in the article is the assumption that they always get the "stars" right to start with. The reputation of the HS program, media exposure, parents' marketing and plain old bandwagon hype play a part in the ratings.
Secondly, it doesn't account for the fact that 17-18 year old males are not fully developed physically, mentally or emotionally. Even if they got the "stars" right, They have no idea if the player is going to grow another inch or two in height, how they are going to get stronger naturally and how they will respond to the strength and conditioning of a top college program.
And then there is the emotional and mental maturity aspects. Ninety-nine percent of the time, these 4-5 star players are, BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS, the biggest, fastest and strongest players on the field. The HS coaches game plan is pretty simple: give him the ball every time and let him be him. How do you know how well the player will adapt to more complex schemes in the college game? Not to mention that throwing, catching, running, tackling and GETTING HIT is a lot different when you play with the big boys.
And of course, there's the coaching, etc. But, that argument has more holes.
I am not saying that recruiting rankings are total B.S., but it's hardly a science. We've all seen way too many five stars wash out and three stars get drafted into the NFL to not know that. It's certainly not scientific enough to say one team is "more talented" because their average stars is .21 better based on the conceived ability of players before they ever even showed up on campus. That's ludicrous.
It's all just conjecture with enough pseudo-analytics and "experts" to drive the multi-million dollar cottage industry that recruiting has become.