I don't doubt that it does in some cases. The problem I have is with people who throw a blanket statement on it and treat it as an absolute. There have been plenty of players with offers from every big-time program who are 3-stars. There are also plenty of 4- and 5-star players with a fairly meager offer list.
There is also the well-worn cliché that "he'd have been a 4-star if only [Ohio St., USC, Alabama, Texas] had offered him" - complete with sarcastic eye-roll. The problem with this logic is that all of these schools sign several 3- and 2-star players each year. If you took these people at face value, you would assume a school like Ohio St. signs 6 5-stars and 19 4-stars every year. Just this year alone, Ohio St. signed 12 3-stars and one 2-star. Ten of those 12 3-stars had a dozen or more BCS offers from all over the country. Hell, even their 2-star had offers from Arkansas, UNC, and Notre Dame. That's one hell of a 2-star!
I think the problem is that some people assume that players are rated highly because they signed with certain schools. Rather, those schools are good because they sign good players. I don't know why it's tough for some to believe that powerhouse schools hit with recruits more often than they miss.
