[AthleticsDynasty]

It means they consistently are rated by recruiting services as performing very well. Put it this way: there hasn't been a national championship winner in the BCS era that has averaged higher than 12 on its four-year recruiting rankings. The only teams to come close are Virginia Tech and Oregon.

You can't look talk about sample size then only look at the select teams that have won BCS championships(which is every bit as much about fan fare as recruiting rankings are). Lets look at something objective like major conference champions in the last 5 years Stanford, Kansas State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin x3, Virginia Tech x2, Oregon x3. None are ranked highly by the "services". So to me it looks like you are just as likely to win your conference without a highly ranked class as you are with.

Anyway, the point isn't to quibble about specific examples -- they obscure. The question is, what do the macro numbers look like? The average five star is twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as an average four star, which is in turn about twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as a three star, which is turn much more likely than a two star to accomplish those two things.

So essentially players who go to Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Florida, Ohio State... are twice as likely to become All Americans and NFL players? That is not an evaluation of talent, that is common sense. The traditional powerhouses are the teams with the most subscriptions and receive the most stars

[AthleticsDynasty]

It means they consistently are rated by recruiting services as performing very well. Put it this way: there hasn't been a national championship winner in the BCS era that has averaged higher than 12 on its four-year recruiting rankings. The only teams to come close are Virginia Tech and Oregon.

You can't look talk about sample size then only look at the select teams that have won BCS championships(which is every bit as much about fan fare as recruiting rankings are). Lets look at something objective like major conference champions in the last 5 years Stanford, Kansas State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin x3, Virginia Tech x2, Oregon x3. None are ranked highly by the "services". So to me it looks like you are just as likely to win your conference without a highly ranked class as you are with.

Anyway, the point isn't to quibble about specific examples -- they obscure. The question is, what do the macro numbers look like? The average five star is twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as an average four star, which is in turn about twice as likely to get drafted and twice as likely to become an All-American as a three star, which is turn much more likely than a two star to accomplish those two things.

So essentially players who go to Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Florida, Ohio State... are twice as likely to become All Americans and NFL players? That is not an evaluation of talent, that is common sense. The traditional powerhouses are the teams with the most subscriptions and receive the most stars