[Hank 91]

Star ratings mean nothing they are purely entertainment

That's actually incorrect. There will always be highly-ranked players who underperform, just as there will be two- and three-star players who develop into NFL players, but generally the ranking system is pretty good. Here's a recent study from SI.com that uses Rivals rankings as a predictor of a team's success:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...-accuracy/

There was another article somewhere (I couldn't find it, but I'm sure it was discussed on this board when it was published) that looked at how the stars translated to NFL success. Surprise, surprise -- more five-star players were drafted than four-stars, more four-stars than three, etc.

But here's where you're right. Chase Thomas tweeted something last year in reference to the arriving freshmen -- "You're all no star players now." The message? Nothing is given; you have to work for what you want. That's why Stanford will contend for a national championship this year.

[Hank 91]

Star ratings mean nothing they are purely entertainment

That's actually incorrect. There will always be highly-ranked players who underperform, just as there will be two- and three-star players who develop into NFL players, but generally the ranking system is pretty good. Here's a recent study from SI.com that uses Rivals rankings as a predictor of a team's success:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...-accuracy/

There was another article somewhere (I couldn't find it, but I'm sure it was discussed on this board when it was published) that looked at how the stars translated to NFL success. Surprise, surprise -- more five-star players were drafted than four-stars, more four-stars than three, etc.

But here's where you're right. Chase Thomas tweeted something last year in reference to the arriving freshmen -- "You're all no star players now." The message? Nothing is given; you have to work for what you want. That's why Stanford will contend for a national championship this year.