Do team recruit rankings matter?

We are hauling in a much better recruit class than Michigan St. My Spartan friends say it means nothing.

I think that if we bring in a better class, it makes it more likely that we have a more talented roster better team.

Anybody disagree?

On the college level, no. But for the purposes of the Star ranking discussion we were talking about whether those rankings translate to the NFL.

Pay attention.

I don't disagree. Every team that has won the BCS championship, had several top 5 recruiting classes within its roster.

There are no Boise States or Sparties as of yet. Probability 2nd, pay attention.

2ndComingOfBo wrote:

On the college level, no. But for the purposes of the Star ranking discussion we were talking about whether those rankings translate to the NFL.

Pay attention.

So you agree that team rankings usually translates to a better team?

But you say that star ratings have nothing to do with how good or bad a player is?

You don't make any sense.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

We are hauling in a much better recruit class than Michigan St. My Spartan friends say it means nothing.

I think that if we bring in a better class, it makes it more likely that we have a more talented roster better team.

Anybody disagree?

Michigan State never recruits as well as Michigan by the star ratings system, so by necessity their opinion must be that the star rating system means nothing. If they don't hold that opinion, their heads will explode. They are feeling even more emboldened with that opinion because they had a little success during the Rich Rod era, ignoring the fact that Rich Rod recruited WORSE than any Michigan coach in recent memory. To me, it's pretty simple, the ratings system matters, but it's not absolute. A higher % of 5-stars are successful than 4-stars, which in turn has a higher % of success than 3-star recruits, but there are always outliers both individual and team-wise. Basically, it's better to have good recruiting rankings than not, but it's never a guarantee.