(02-07-2018 01:40 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Oh, well if they say offers don't play any role then it must be true. Come on, JC, they aren't going to admit to being lazy or non-thorough with these ratings.

Yes so if you dont have proof just call them liars got it....

Critics of recruiting rankings are quick to reference the two-star or three-star prospect who far outperformed his ranking. These examples happen every year and will continue to happen every year.

But recruiting rankings continue to be good predictors of future success. There are always exceptions, but the schools that sign the best recruiting classes typically have the most on-field success. The last three national champions -- Ohio State, Florida State and Alabama -- have all done a terrific job signing top-rated recruiting classes. A 2014 SB Nation story showed that every BCS champion since 2005 signed more four and five-star prospects than lesser-ranked players.

You and others need to learn the difference between being reliable vs being 100%. Also the meaning of anecdotal would be nice as well.

I cant fathom how this is hard to grasp. They are reliable for every level not fool proof and NOBODY has ever said they were. If you have team A or conference A with a higher ranked roster their CHANCES of being more successful than team B or conference with lower ranked roster is greater the wider the look the more reliable they are. This is why conf ratings are more consistent than team rankings team rankings have less variation than player rankings. I took one class in stats and this is basic stuff....