There are a lot of stupid people, that's all that the recruiting industry proves.
So, someone is "stupid" if they have different interests than you? Gotcha. Assuming you're neither a physician, a barrister, or a nuclear physicist, I guess doctors, lawyers, and scientists are "stupid".
Star rankings are meaningless.
Incorrect.
A player is NOT better because of his star rating. Tommy Olson is NOT a better or worse player because of this arbitrary ranking, he is the EXACT same player regardless of three or four stars.
I agree. But I also realize there are also tangible benefits to the star ranking, aside from merely evaluating the player himself. Aside from the predictive value of the rankings, you don't think that players are more likely to go to a school that has a lot of four- and five-star players? Ergo, by definition, star rankings are NOT meaningless.
Star rankings are almost exclusively based off of who is on the offer sheet.
Even though this is not entirely correct, why does everyone paint this to be a bad thing? You're telling me that someone who has offers from Florida, USC, Texas, etc. is not likely to be a good player? You don't want that player? You don't think he's worthy of a four- or five-star ranking?
In 2010 alone:
Florida had five 3-stars and one 2-star.
Alabama had nine 3-stars and one 2-star.
Texas had four 3-stars.
Ohio St. had nine 3-stars and two 2-stars.
Notre Dame had twelve 3-stars and one 2-star.
Penn St. had six 3-stars and one 2-star.
I could go on for quite some time, but my point has been made. I guess Rivals didn't get the memo that every kid who signs with a helmet school has to be a minimum 4-star.
P.S. Everybody is well aware that you hate recruiting. You don't need to post on recruiting threads. We all get it.
