The Blue Board

There's like 25 three stars for every five. Of course much of the first round will be them.

Five stars are more ready to contribute first year. 95% of the time in my observation that's all it is. 3 years later many of the 3 stars catch them. A great program, that redshirts 3/4s of it's freshman class or better shouldnt care one iota about stars. It's all their staff's scouting ability, the "environment" in the lockerroom, and kids' character.

A lockerroom environment is massive. Right now, just for instance, FSU football is up and coming and exciting. All the players are working their balls off and developing like champs. Emotions swing the other way and a class of 25 five stars will yield 5 good players.

JMO of course

When you look at the percentages, then yes they are relevant. There are hundreds if not thousands more 3* recruits than there are 5* recruits. Hundreds more 3* than 4*. If you have 10 4* recruits go in the first round compared to 15 3* recruits then that is a win for the 4* recruits seeing how there aren't near as many.

There are also many recruits that are underrated and some that are overrated for reasons unknown. Look at Pac Man Jones. Yes, he is an idiot that screwed up a great thing, but he was also a 1* recruit that only had one BCS offer. He went 6th overall on the draft.

Many different variables in recruiting, but the draft numbers don't lie. If you get some 4* players, they are likely to be big time players for your team. If you get some 3* players, you just have to hope you got the right ones that will be good enough to go onto the level.

My feelings to a T MM.

Are they irrelevant for everything else? I believe they can be solid indicator. No guaranty though. Give me the 4* and above all day, you can build a team of 3* and below kids that never make it to a BCS bowl if you want.

FSU fans get it

Few things are really definitive. Recruiting rankings are extremely speculative. Yes, more often higher ranked kids do go on to be superstars, but can anyone really tell the difference between the kid ranked 230 and the one ranked 250? Or 300? What about 600 versus 1,000? Except for the few standouts in any year's class, most others all seem to blur together until they shine through with 1) The right system to fit them and 2) Good coaching/trainers to build them up. Add in depth as an x-factor because with enough time to learn playbooks and sit on the sidelines hungry, waiting for their turn and being motivating by being right on that fringe of losing their spot to someone else, some kids break through to that next level.

Concerning the OP, it's not that "recruiting rankings are useless", it's that they try to paint way too simple of a picture. They're bets. They are speculation on how athletic a kid will be at another level and while not completely useless, they sure aren't guarantees of future success either.

I definitely think they matter, but there is also one key element to any players success that is nearly impossible a lot of times to predict/project.

Does a team that recruits the best athletes/prospects, not in one class, but over time have a better chance to be successful than a team that is a notch or two below in that manner? Sure they do, but very few things are guaranteed in this life. For me, the reason is...it's not about collecting talent, but building a TEAM with the most talented parts that are talent maximizers, developed, etc...

The talent maximizing is the toughest part of the equation IMO, and that is at any level - and the NFL spends millions upon millions trying to get into the heads and hearts of the prospects/players they are going to spend an insane amount of $$$ on. That's why it will never be an exact science - ever.

Taking out the college to the NFL part of the equation, look at high school to college.

Let's say that the #46 prospect in the country happens to be a DT and goes to the same school as the #244 prospect in the same class. Let's also say the #46 prospect is definitely more talented from a baseline skill set, has better film, is better right now on Friday nights and is more heavily recruited because of it than #244. That definitely doesn't guarantee that #46 is going to leave college of have a better career than #244.

There are a number of variables involved in this, the most at the quarterback position and why it's the toughest position in sports with some big booms, and so many dramatic busts.

The most important part of the equation for me is talent maximization. IMO, you have your special talents, and they make it to the highest level a high % of the time unless they have major injury or serious off the field issues. After that, it's a talent maximization contest. For me, that is maximizing ones talent in every way possible, and those that do that (with the understanding they do have enough baseline talent from a starting point) - ascend and do so zipping right past guys that were more highly thought of out of high school.

Getting back to #46 ranked prospect in the USA that happened to sign with the same university in the same class with #244. If #46 doesn't work to maximize his talent at the next level, and #244 does - many, many times #244 ascends past the more physically gifted player and becomes the better player.

That's just a simple one prospect vs another prospect in the same class, the same position that signs with the same university scenario, but I truly believe that is the universal scenario. That is the key scenario in all of this, not under valuing coaching, S&C, player development.

At the end of the day, that is very difficult to project/predict in many cases. Having grown up in a coaching family, and being lucky enough to know a number of college coaches because of the business I'm blessed to work in, it's even difficult for the coaches and they have more data/information on prospects at their disposal, in most cases, than we do in this business. That's why, the biggest reason, that colleges have their fare share of misses too. It's just difficult to know how guys that have had very little adversity on a field will react to it when it hits (and it hits for 99% of guys) and if they will maximize the talent.

And obviously, injuries are part of the equation for players/prospects too - and the vast majority of the time are unpredictable.

It's a different discussion, but one of my favorite topics is collecting talent vs. building a team. Those that build a TEAM with the best talent available to get that job done, and do so consistently, tend to rise to the top and can do so over an extended period of time.

Recruiting rankings is what UM fans hang their hat on, just let them think it matters more than the product on the field.

Part of the problem is that fans/media don't understand the definition of a three-star prospect and think there's this huge difference between a high three and low four, mostly because that's usually the cutoff for national rankings lists. With how we see it, there isn't.

Wiltfong has explained it many times. A 3* is a BCS caliber players. The difference between a low 4* and high 3* is minuscule. The big difference starts to kick in on the upper 4*'s and above.