Quote:
Originally Posted by Silock
If you say so. That's still only 1 5-star and 1 4-star. Not saying you guys shouldn't be excited about the guys, but I think it's going to take a lot more to be even *competitive* in the SEC.
|
Don't forget how circular the Rivals ratings are.
When Notre Dame was considered the front-runner for Mauk, it was a given that it was just a matter of time before Mauk ended up a 4-star. He went out there and set the world on fire as a Senior but still didn't get that 4th star after signing with Mizzou. It wasn't because of his performance.
Rivals will concede that they base part of their ratings on what schools are pursuing a player. Every year there are several players that get stars added
because they go to Alabama or Oklahoma or whatever. So to a degree, teams like Alabama get 3 or 4 extra 'stars' each year by virtue of the fact that they're chasing the kid.
Ultimately, the difference between the top 1/2 of the 3 stars and the bottom 1/2 of the 4 stars is nominal at best. That's where most classes come from for all but the 'blue-blood' power programs.
Ultimately, I'd rather have 2 5-stars and a ton of 3 high 3-stars, than to have 4 4-stars and a bunch of 3-stars.
Getting that 5-star, a clearly elite talent, is more critical than getting a couple of extra 4-stars (guys who are just a little better than the 3-stars, if better at all).
That's not to say I'm not disappointed with the class, but it has nothing to do with the 'star' ratings. I think we lost on a couple of undervalued DTs and a couple of O-lineman that would've all been very nice players for us. All of them were 3-star kids, but they were kids with projectable frames and nice pedigrees that I expected to outperform those rankings.