re: Should all the 3*s be a cause for concern?

About 7 or 8 years ago, i developed a theory about the strength of a recruiting class being the number of kids rated .9400 or higher. I developed the theory tracking grades and determining an impact rate (can it be argued that the kid is top 4 at his position in conference. Someone who may honorable mention in an all conference list). The ratio was pretty close to 1 out of 2 kids at that time would finish their college career at least one season in that range.

As it happens, .9400 is usually a top 150 recruit in the country.

This year, we have 14 kids .9400+

Last year, we had 11 kids .9400+

2020 had 12 kids .9400+

2019 had 10 kids .9400+

2018 had 14 kids .9400+

2017 had 9 kids .9400+

2016 had 7 kids .9400+

2015 had 7 kids .9400+

2014 had 6 kids .9400+

2013 (after an SEC CG appearance) had 3 kids .9400+. This class was the deathnail to Richt's career at UGA. In total, it was 32 recruits. But a serious lack of substance.

I havent gone back to confirm if the hit ratio is still 2 recruits for every hit. But the concept remains that these recruits are high 4 stars (closer to 5 star than they are 3 star).

And it gives one picture of how different Kirby recruits than Richt.

Edit to add: this is also pushback on "blue chip ratios" which include a kid rated .8890 as a low 4 star the equivalent to a 5 star .9890.

2nd edit: i teetered on including .9200-.9399 in the tally during research. Some seasons, it would have strong ratios. Some seasons, it would not. The lack of consistency and small sample of recruits in that tight window made me leave it out. Plus, it is easier to say "these kids are closer to 5 stars than 3 stars" without that sample.