The Blue Board

But it's a pretty sweet looking tool fwiw

Nah man not at all

I hate spiders. And recruiting rankings DO matter. If they didn't, none of us would pay for this ish. Here's some perspective. I'm going to use some estimates since I don't know the exact numbers, but measuring recruiting rankings against draft selections is a tangible metric that can show the accuracy of a recruiting site. For example....

Of the 32 players projected in the 1st round...

16% were 5*
28% were high 4* (5.9rr-6.0rr)
16% were 4* ---- 4*'s accounted for a combined 44% of 1st round draftees projected
28% were 3*
13% were 2*

Immediately one recognizes that 4*'s make up almost half of the draft, but you have to take into account the proportion (overall number) of players to star rating. On average, there are roughly 30 5*'s, 250 4*'s, and then 1500 2-3* kids. Again, this is a rough estimate because I don't know the overall extent of their database. Using this data, 5* kids account for 0.17% percent of overall prospects. 4* kids comprise 14% of the population and 2-3* kids make up 84% of rated HS prospects. SO.....

The five 5* kids drafted come from a proportion of 0.17% of rated prospects. For such a small proportion of rated prospects to make up 16% of the projected first round of the draft is impressive. Likewise, the 44% of four star kids projected in the first round come from 14% of the overall population. The 84% proportion comprised of 2-3* kids account for a combined 41% of the total population (1780 prospects). When you consider the proportion sizes, I would consider their ratings to be accurate, and I think you'd see a continuing trend in the later rounds.

If people say recruiting rankings don't matter, they're on crack.

Look at the recruiting classes of the past 12 champions. They all have top classes.