(02-12-2018 10:19 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Yes, they do have numerical ratings, but all 3-stars have higher numerical ratings than any 2-star. Maybe if you were looking at a dozen signees you might have a point but you are looking at 100+ that were eligible for all-conference awards.

And if you had read carefully you'd see I did compare the percentages of 3-star guys to percentage of 3-star guys signed. The three-star guys are underrepresented in the first-team all-conference group.

I get what you're saying, but that's not good enough. You have the top 25% of conference players in terms of 247 ranking only making up 15% of first-team all-conference performers, that just doesn't speak well to the rankings. That doesn't just show 3-star players aren't any more likely to get selected than non-3-star players, it shows the 2-star players and unrated guys are doing better with a large number of players. The difference between 25% and 15% isn't meaningful if you're talking about a couple dozen players in the conference, but with many hundreds it can't be ignored.