Recruiting Rankings vs. Offers vs. Meatballs

[stowfan]

Bro, are you like implying there's something wrong with being a meathead, bro?

Please visit reddit.com/r/swoleacceptance and educate yourself

Regarding the whole stargazing debate, stars are certainly not the be all end all of recruiting, but relatively speaking, a much greater % of 4 and 5 star recruits succeed and excel, as compared to their 3 star brethren. We've seen this debate at least once every few months, and it seems to be the same exact people laying out the same exact viewpoints.

There you go again, winning friends and influencing people, is it like, that time of the month?

 

[isaac416]

I agree that "offer lists" are a better indicator than "rankings." However, offer lists largely mirror rankings, especially with 4* and 5* recruits. 5* recruits have exceptional offer lists. Jaylon Smith isn't being offered by only MAC schools and bottom-feeder B10 schools. So with respect to 4/5* kids, offer lists and rankings are virtually indistinguishable as a general rule.

The value of offer lists is probably best seen in lower-rated recruits and is a good way to separate 3* kids. Of course, I don't remember AJ Hawk having a tremendous offer list (could be wrong on that). Laurinatis' offer list was horrible. So, the same anecdotal crap that people use to say "rankings don't matter" can be used against "offer lists".

Big picture, though, 4/5* recruits almost always have 4/5* offer lists, so there's no real difference. 3* recruits have varying offer lists, so offer lists are of value. And in the ends, I'd still gladly take a team of random 4/5* kids all day long over a team of random 3* kids. I can't believe anyone wouldn't.