This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Star ratings correlate highly with NFL draft placement by beattherush

I did an exhaustive analysis of this a few years back. Each star yields roughly 12% chance of getting drafted IIRC.

As you correctly point out, some schools over perform relative to their average star ratings and some underperform. So while star ratings are in fact useless for a particular player, they have some relevance at the program level and strong relevance overall.

In short: ND is underperforming in recruiting relative to top-level programs. It is relevant to the amount of talent we're starting with. And the fact that our recruits look overrated has more to do with our inability to develop players than it does a flaw in the rating system.