I'd like to know how many five stars were in that class. To me, the question for each class is what percentage of five stars make it into the first round of the draft. That would be telling of how "valid" the five star rating is.
also, how many 5 stars 4 stars 3 stars and 2 stars were there total. You can look at those percentages compared to first round percentages. For example: If in 2004 there were 20 5 stars 50 4 stars 200 3 stars and 400 2 stars then the only way it would be completely insignificant is if there were 2 5 star first day guys 5 4 star first day guys 20 3 star first day guys and 40 2 star first day guys Obviously this isn't true. But you could just break it down into 3 star, 4 star and 5 star, or better yet just 4 star and 5 star to see what the differnces are in the categories.
I'd say that Rivals 5 star rankings are based on about 25% hype, 25% substance, and 50% flashy videos. And, as a rough guess, I would say that 20% of 5 stars meet/exceed expectations, 50% are good but do not meet the expectations of a 5 star, and 30% completely underachieve (also includes injury, non-qualifiers, etc). I know Scout does their own breakdowns after the draft, but I'm not sure about Rivals.
There may actually be a new term for kids who get gratuitous bumps. Just call it the Chow bump. JUCO QB prospect Kevin Craft was a 1* just a week ago. ucla received his commitment and now he's a 5* and the 5th rated QB in the country according to Scout. ucla already had Nick Crissman, a VERY good 4* signed for this class along with Forcier in the depth chart so Kevin is pretty much an insurance QB but now he's rated ahead of Crissman.
On this issue, in addition to what TB3 mentioned about the percentages, there is a certain arbitrariness to the number of star ratings. Last I saw, the services essentially draw a line and say 25 or 30 players get 5*, and the next 70-75 get 4* to fill out their top 100. So at least for 5*, 4* and the top 3* players they are using a quota system, not a merit system, which means that in any given year the actual skill level of a player could be reflected by different star ratings. So a guy who one year might be a 4* could be a 3* in another depending on how deep the talent is that particular year, or vice versa. Obviously the coaches are not concerned with that kind of quota (though you could make a case that they have a quota in having need at specific positions), so they are evaluating the players and making offers with a little different criteria in mind.
Well, based on what you folks have said so far, I'm guessing that the star ratings may relate more to past performance (HS film, stats) than a bankable assessment of potential. Probably driven by intangibles like quality of HS competition, coachability, ability to handle competition for starting spots (maybe the first time ever for a 4/5 star), work ethic, personality, etc. It'll be fun to see the next Jacob Hester rise up. So, who's going to be the most underrated prospect in this class for LSU? How about in the SEC?
I think there's a general, but not specific quota on 5 star players, and a much more general quota on 4 stars. And those general quotas are based on a belief at Rivals that there are only a certain amount of elite players each year, it will on average be around the quotas they have set, and won't change drastically between years. I don't have an issue with the quota system, as I don't think it makes a substantial difference than if it were purely a merit system. The real difference between Rivals and coaches, is that coaching evaluations are much, much more thorough. They follow their high school careers more closely, have more accurate measurements, and see their true abilities in camps. Rivals/Scout/ESPN - are all primarily based around film review.
Puts coaches miles ahead of the recruiting services' evaluations IMHO. That being said, you never know whats going to happen to a kid when he reaches college. Some continue to grow and develop, some don't. Take RJF for example. Granted we were all high on him and wanted him to commit. However, I don't think we thought he would be as dominant as he has become.
