The star ratings began to gain popularity at the turn of the century, and especially the last decade. It seems to be the end all and be all for many, even though there are numerous examples of programs during that time who have ascended with the oft-maligned three stars, including TCU, Baylor, Michigan State, Oregon to a degree, or a Kansas State with so many JCs, etc.
Back in the 1990s it was more like who was a blue-chip. Growing up in the 1970s, here was my way of evaluating: If Notre Dame is willing to offer a scholarship to someone, he must be good. Same with Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, Texas, etc ... And from there, it's a matter of system and development. The one thing we knew is USC would always have more talent than ND because that's just the way it is in their area and who they can admit. In interviews I've done over the years, the attitude of ND players even back then was, "If we can beat USC, we can beat anybody." (In 17 years from 1966-82, ND beat USC only three times, and it won the national title all of those years).
By the time the 1980s arrived, Joe Terranova, Tom Lemming began making college football recruiting into a cottage industry and it has now morphed into the monster it is. The summer time used to be a calm time regarding football. Now, it's constant hand-wringing about three stars versus four stars, etc.
This is probably a question for the older crowd, but did you enjoy football more back then than now just because not every recruit was analyzed to pieces, or to where the joy was sucked out sometimes of landing someone because he's "only a three star and we can't beat the Alabamas or USCs or Ohio States, et al" with these caliber of players?
Or do you find these current debates more exciting? Were you like so many others who in the 1980s would pick up the USA Today on Signing Day, see who ND got and think, "Well, it looks like they got some pretty good recruits"?
I still look at it the same way: If ND offers, the young man must be pretty good. But I'm aware that Alabama, USC, Texas, Ohio State et al give scholarships too. And obviously Northwestern, Pitt, BC, Michigan State and others who have been a thorn in ND's side over the years do too.
The information is better ever. You knew looking at the 2004 and 2005 classes, no matter how you wanted to spin it, Notre Dame was headed for a huge fall (3-9 in 2007 when those groups were juniors and seniors), so there is something to be said for the ratings.
But is it almost too much paralysis by analysis now?
Back in the 1990s it was more like who was a blue-chip. Growing up in the 1970s, here was my way of evaluating: If Notre Dame is willing to offer a scholarship to someone, he must be good. Same with Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, Texas, etc ... And from there, it's a matter of system and development. The one thing we knew is USC would always have more talent than ND because that's just the way it is in their area and who they can admit. In interviews I've done over the years, the attitude of ND players even back then was, "If we can beat USC, we can beat anybody." (In 17 years from 1966-82, ND beat USC only three times, and it won the national title all of those years).
By the time the 1980s arrived, Joe Terranova, Tom Lemming began making college football recruiting into a cottage industry and it has now morphed into the monster it is. The summer time used to be a calm time regarding football. Now, it's constant hand-wringing about three stars versus four stars, etc.
This is probably a question for the older crowd, but did you enjoy football more back then than now just because not every recruit was analyzed to pieces, or to where the joy was sucked out sometimes of landing someone because he's "only a three star and we can't beat the Alabamas or USCs or Ohio States, et al" with these caliber of players?
Or do you find these current debates more exciting? Were you like so many others who in the 1980s would pick up the USA Today on Signing Day, see who ND got and think, "Well, it looks like they got some pretty good recruits"?
I still look at it the same way: If ND offers, the young man must be pretty good. But I'm aware that Alabama, USC, Texas, Ohio State et al give scholarships too. And obviously Northwestern, Pitt, BC, Michigan State and others who have been a thorn in ND's side over the years do too.
The information is better ever. You knew looking at the 2004 and 2005 classes, no matter how you wanted to spin it, Notre Dame was headed for a huge fall (3-9 in 2007 when those groups were juniors and seniors), so there is something to be said for the ratings.
But is it almost too much paralysis by analysis now?
