OSUBuckeye4Life;836046; said:
Hardly on the BPRT but I'll take a stab at this. I think they are going on the precedent that the top 50 on Scout obtain a 5* ranking when the full rankings come out and Adams (#10), Brewster (#26), and Shugarts (#29) would all fit the bill.
tsteele316;836063; said:
it was said that they didn't finish their evaluations. so, they did their top 25, all of which got 5*. numbers 26-100 are still subject to be moved around, added, or dropped, based on combine performances that have gone on over the last few weeks. Scout will still have their 50 5* guys. And, it is probably a pretty safe assumption that anyone in the top 30-35 is probably going to be a 5*.
Now, Stoney having a monster day at the Pitt combine, and Torrence putting on a show may actually elevate them into the top 50 as well.
wadc45;836075; said:
As for the number, no one speculating about the numbers in the class knows for sure...I am just going by the fact that we are likely to have 16 and there is usually one or two extra schollies by attrition of some kind.
Brewster is rated as the top OL by Rivals right now, which elevates him to 5-star status in my mind. Shugarts and Stoney are likely to be 5-stars as well based on their offer sheets. Torrence should be in the neighborhood as well. Adams is a lock as far as Scout is concerned. We won't even get into Adams and the Rivals rankings.
Agreed with all, but I'll add just one more thing. The BPRT also sometimes uses the term "five-star" figuratively to mean "blue chip", "top notch", etc. IMHO, the recruiting services have far too few five-star players, and many times the selections are based more on politics than production or potential. Last year, over 2,700 prospects signed letters of intent with D-IA programs; to say (as does Rivals and Scout) that only 1-2% of those players are worthy of "five stars" is patently ridiculous. I would venture to say that players who sign with Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Florida, Texas, etc. are by definition "four star" and "five star" prospects. In reality, it would be rare for a top-tier program to "reach" for a "two star" or "three star" talent.
In addition, when it comes to individual prospects, it is almost impossible to use "stars" to distinguish between players with similar talents. For example, in the class of 2007, Brandon Saine was rated by Rivals as the fifth-best running back in the entire country, and the 50th-best prospect overall, yet he received "only" four stars. However, Southern Cal signee Marc Tyler, who received the coveted five star rating, was ranked the second best running back and 17th-best overall prospect. Is there really a "one star" difference between the two players? In actual high school production? In probable college potential? In size, strenght, speed? No, of course not, but the limited use of five star ratings by the established recruiting services ratchets up the drama that has become college recruiting.
On the topic of the Buckeyes' current verbals, I have little doubt that Adams, Brewster, and Shugarts will all eventually earn five stars from one or the other of the ratings services. Of the remaining verbals, Stoneburner would seem to have the best chance to move into that category, based on his "freakish" measurables, and the probability that he will post some outstanding numbers as a high school senior; having an existing "five star" teammate could help Stoney to gain more notoriety. Cordale Scott could also get some consideration, given the history of "five star" prospects who have graduated from Glenville - Ginn (both), Rose (Rivals), Whitner (Scout), and O'Neal (Scout).
