Why does the amount of 5 star recruits remain so consistent?

They have to make the cutoff point somewhere.

While I agree a lot of kids could come into play for the 5* ranking, most 5* are probably looked at as "can't miss" prospects, whereas there is much more parity in the 4 stars and so on.

If they raised the number of 5 stars to 60 (double the avg) all it would mean is that 30 4*s were seen as 5*s, and I'm not sure the depth of the 5* list is really that big.

quote:

---

If they are honestly being evaluated, why should there be a cutoff point though? If one year there are 50 can't miss players and one year there are 15, then that should be the amount I would think. Not that I put a lot of faith into these rankings, I just found it interesting that the number had such little variation.

---

Yeah, I don't know either. To me, it's like recruiting rankings. It's a wash from 4-15 as long as your team addresses it's needs. Star players a re nice, but you can only play 11, and the guys behind them are hopefully not much of a drop off.

quote:

---

Why does the amount of 5 star recruits remain so consistent?

---

Star rankings are really only about marketing for recruiting companies. They decided that basically using a bell curve is the best way to market their star system evaluations. That's about all there is to it.

*cough*rivals*cough*

In my opinion, they should just rank positions because if you need a DT, who the hell cares that you picked up 3 5* WRs?

Also, how the hell does anyone accurately rank all the positions together. Basically, they just re- rank them every few months to give the subscribers something t look at.

quote:

---

Why does the amount of 5 star recruits remain so consistent?

---

Not everyone is special

They like to keep the # of 5 stars around 30, they've said as much before.

There are still WAY too many 4 stars though. The vast majority of HS players should be 3 stars.

So TN can win mythical SEC East recruiting championships



Truthfully none of it really matters, its all a relative crapshoot when it comes to recruiting at that level. Statistics show when it comes to who gets drafted and where, has little to no bearing on their high school rankings. It has more to do with the coaching they receive in college, as well as how they continue to physically and athletically mature against better overall talent.

Not oblivious to the fact that yes, teams that have higher recruiting rankings are the ones that historically finish higher in rankings, better bowls, etc... but with social media, and the web. College recruiting has become a stargazing circus. I understand the need to make money, and services rank and rate these guys, but at the end of the day it comes down to coaching.

For instance I see a guy like UT commit Dylan Jackson who is 6'6 245, plays a little high I would say, but has good arms, a great motor, and can for a guy his size get up the field pretty well. He is a 3* that to me is bs.

Or OM Jay Johnson. I am from the gulf coast of Mississippi. Bruce has a good tradition, good coach, this guy is underrated to me, at 6'4 210 and can do a bunch of things, well he plays at a small podunk school in Mississippi and isn't a camp whore. But is a 3*.

I almost wish we did not have recruiting "services" anymore. There have always been rankings. But good athletes and players, wont get a "star", and then some power offers them, and then they get looked at it.

Just venting now, but I agree with above posters there should not be a limit to any number of stars or rankings. It should be who is the best on film, relative to the competition. Can't miss is really stretching it

quote:

---

Another question I have is why do guys get their ratings dropped when there has been no new material to rate them on since they were last adjusted. Sometimes it seems like they punish kids in essence for not going to camps.

---

This is very true. Current SC commit blackshear was a top 10 player when 247 first released their rankings but because he isn't into recruiting and doesn't attend any camps he has dropped every time a new ranking is released.

I don't KNOW the answer, but I would guess it has something to do with the number of NFL teams being 32 (i.e. # of first-round picks each year).

I am actually interested to hear a real answer (from someone who knows) myself.