Can you just make your case without the insults? I have thick enough skin where it doesn't bother me, but i'm more worried about how this makes the community look to new visitors/ potential posters who want to get involved in the discussion but dont want to be bullied for their opinions or called stupid, an idiot, a moron, or whatever else. The average age of posters here has got to be well over 50 -- is it too much to ask to act like it?
Star ratings are grades/evaluations of an athletes measurements, height, weight, speed, drill-times, strength, etc. (and their raw physical/athletic potential going forward) these evaluations/grades are earned over multiple years in camp, on film, etc. while prospects are 16-18 years old.
Good coaches are able to overcome lack of raw physical ability (e.g. jim harbaugh 2023 and marcus freeman 2024 and many others on a lesser scale) and develop the hell out of players fundamentals and maximize their skills, but from a raw physical material standpoint, there isn't much headroom. And players that do have a lot of athletic headroom going forward are awarded aggressive grades for it.
Georgia has an 85 man roster full of some of the rarest/scarcest athletes at their position out of HS: 30 players rated in top 100 composite, half of those the highest rated players at their position). Notre Dame has one player graded among the highest percentile.
With good scouting/evaluations/etc. ND has been able to find several diamonds in the ruff but in aggregate the collective difference in raw physical material between Georgia and Notre Dame are as far apart as it gets at the high P4 level.
It's just funny (sarcastically) and frankly really annoying to see Driskell foaming at the mouth, CONSTANTLY stating this idea that Notre Dame has the more talented roster, the more athletic roster, etc. which goes against all of the evidence/data on the topic. Its cringe inducing. To see someone state something so emphatically while having no clue whatsoever about what they are talking about.
