A USC poster, on their board, pointed out to me that there were fewer 5* ratings given out and more 3* and 4*- I hadn't realized that. When you look at it in those terms- percentage-wise, more 5* players get in. :thumb:
Scroll back and reread your post. It's clear you said 2 or less stars, not 3 or less. Only 10% of the players drafted in the first round were rated lower than 3 stars. Maybe, maybe not. Players drafted in the first round usually had outstanding college careers. I would say this is a leading indicator to the type of talent a school is producing. As discussed earlier, the first round was 10%. Plus you're just guessing about the current 1800 players in the NFL as far as the star distribution. As far as we know 95% of the 1800 could be 3 stars or higher. The "trick" is recruiting the type of player that allows you to compete into today's college environment. Looks like Michigan kept recruiting highly rated pieces to answer more traditional offensive attacks. Meanwhile other schools were recruiting highly rated athletes to form their spread offenses. Notre Dame is being coached by someone with one previous year of college experience. Weiss doesn't know how to groom players. That program is going to be on life support for years to come regardless of the quality of their recruits.
From your vast knowledge of what makes a great coach and a successful college program, I'd suggest somebody get your name to Michigan and Notre Dame.:lol: Texsport
Clearly the star rating system is just a subjective tool. So much can change between high school and college, sometimes we forget because football players are such athletic freaks but they are still growing young men and their bodies, physiques, as well as the mental aspect can all rapidly develop (or recede). Hester is clearly an example of the former.
