To add to the last post: i realize there's this inherent bias with Notre Dame fans that there's not a lot of difference between players ranked in the top 25/top 50/top 100/top 250 etc. (it's a convenient and bias way for ND fans to look at things given NDs recruiting results during much of the BK era) but each of these cut offs represent a legitimate tier. ND does well with your lower 4 star rated player, where the current powerhouses in college football monopolize much of the top 100 (5 star/high 4 star rated players).
Clemson has not "monopolized on 5*/Top100 prospects" before the last 1-2 recruiting classes...but they've still been a powerhouse
USC has monopolized on 5*/Top100 talent consistently, but ND has been better than them during the BK era
You're claims are just childish and do not speak to reality
Generally speaking, there is a correlation between higher recruiting rankings and overall team talent.
However, this correlation is far from tight, as there are NUMEROUS counter-examples
Furthermore, this correlation says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the "tiers" that you've tried to draw bright lines around. There is literally no backing for that.
The reality is, there is very little empirical difference between high-4* prospects, mid-4* prospects, and low-4* prospects. Attempts to draw bright lines in the area are mainly arbitrary.